HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-27-972.
3.
4.
o
REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
MONDAY, OCTOBER 27, 1997
6:30 p.m.
Call Meeting to Order:
Roll Call:
Approval of Minutes:
Public Hearings:
A. Case #97-103 Wendy Whitney requesting a variance to construct a new
528 square foot detached garage with additional driveway in the rear yard o£
property located at 14407 Watersedge Trail.
Old Business:
B. Case #97-053 Brian Mattson Variance Continued - request to construct a
new garage and access driveway for the property located at 16575 Inguadona
Beach Circle.
New Business:
A. Discussion with Watershed District Representative.
B. Flood Plain Presentation.
Announcements and Correspondence:
A. Update on Downtown Steering Committee meeting.
B. Letter from Burdick Properties.
Adjournment:
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
OCTOBER 13, 1997
1. Call to Order:
The October 13, 1997, Planning Commission meeting was called to order by Chairman
Stamson at 6:30 p.m. Those present were Commissioners Cramer, Criego, Kuykendall,
Stamson and Vonhof, Director of Planning Don Rye, Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier,
and Recording Secretary Connie Carlson.
2. Roll Call:
Cramer Present
Kuykendall Present
Criego Absent
Vonhof Absent
Stamson Present
Commissioners Criego and Vonhof arrived at 7:31 p.m.
3. Approval of Minutes:
September 8 and September 22, 1997
MOTION BY KUYKENDALL, SECOND BY CRAMER, TO ADOPT BOTH SETS OF
MINUTES.
Vote taken signified ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
4. Public Hearings:
A. Case #97-090 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER AN
AMENDMENT TO TITLE 5A (FLOOD PLAIN REGULATIONS) OF THE
CITY CODE RELATING TO THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE OFFICIAL
MAP, THE FLOOD PROTECTION ELEVATION, AND
NONCONFORMING STRUCTURES
The hearing was opened to the public and a sign-up sheet was circulated to the public in
attendance.
Commissioner Stamson read the public hearing statement.
Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the staff report dated October 13, 1997.
The public hearing is to consider several amendments to Title 5A (Flood Plain
Regulations) of the City Code. The proposed amendments relate the references to
Minnesota statutes, the establishment of the official map, the flood protection elevation
and nonconforming structures.
L:\97FILES\97PLCOMM~PCMINhMN 101397.DOC 1
Some time ago, the City of Prior Lake submitted a revised flood study to the Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). The purpose was to revise the flood
elevations and the flood plain boundaries based on the outlet in Prior Lake. As a result of
this study, the 100-year flood elevation on Prior Lake was reduced from 909.3 feet to
908.9 feet. FEMA recently approved this revised study and has issued new Flood
Insurance Rate Maps for the City of Prior Lake.
The approval of this new study, as well as recent changes to the State statutes, trigger the
need for some changes to the Flood Plain regulations. The City had hoped to incorporate
these changes into the new zoning ordinance, but time constraints require these
amendments be done separately.
Most of the amendments proposed are minor and are essentially "housekeeping" items.
These amendments include the following:
Section 5A-l-1 (A):
104 to Chapter 103F.
Change the reference to Minnesota Statutes from Chapter
Section 5A-1-2 (A) and Section 5A-1-4 (A):
from Zone A2 and A7 to Zone AE and A.
Change the reference to flood zones
Section 5A-1-2 (B): Change the date of the official map to November 19, 1997.
The major changes to the ordinance are a result of the action of the State Legislature. In
the 1997 session, the legislature reinstated a mandatory 1 foot of freeboard for the flood
protection elevation. The result of this action is that the Flood Protection Elevation must
be at least one foot above the flood elevation.
This freeboard requirement was removed from the state law several years ago, and the
City of Prior Lake removed it from the local flood plain regulations on September 17,
1990. One of the City's concerns was the fact this new requirement will make structures
built after 1990 nonconforming. The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources agreed
with the staff's concerns. The DNR has drafted language which specifically notes the
flood protection elevation for structures built between September 17, 1990, and the
effective date of the new ordinance does not include the one foot of freeboard. This
language allows these structures as conforming uses, unless the structure is removed for
redevelopment of the property. This effectively addresses the concerns many appraisers
and insurance companies have about nonconforming structures.
Staff's recommendation was to approve the amendments as proposed, or with changes
specified by the Planning Commission.
Commissioner Kuykendall questioned jeopardizing the dollar value to the City with the
National Flood Plain's Insurance Program. Rye explained it was not in terms of dollar
value to the City - what it means the City would loose its eligibility where no one can buy
flood insurance.
L:\97FILES\97PLCOMMkPCMINXMN 101397.DOC 2
Comments from the Public:
Rick Johnson, 5283 Frost Point Circle, questioned how many people this affects. He
guesses it is around 100 to 200 homes. Johnson realizes ordinances change over time.
He gave an example of lake elevation changes in the last 10 months.
Johnson went on to say Planning Director Rye was able to work with the DNR and
isolate a group of people who built (on the lake) between 1990 and the proposed effective
date. Those people are excluded from the one foot freeboard. The State changed the rule
in 1980. Johnson said his understanding is City ordinances cannot be more restrictive
than State ordinances and felt this was against the law and should be corrected. He feels
other lakeshore residents who built homes before 1990 are being penalized.
Rye explained homes built before 1978 were not under the Flood Plain Ordinance. Prior
to 1978 there was no Flood Pla'm Ordinance or regulations.
Johnson said when he bought his home he did not know it was in the flood plain and feels
his home value has decreased and feels restricted on remodeling. He also felt hardship on
replacing his home if it bums down. Johnson said his property is non-buildable and is
taxed higher than his neighbors. He thinks the City made a major mistake allowing his
house to be built in 1974. Johnson questioned why people from 1990 to the current date
allowed to build, when the other people who followed the City at the time penalized.
Kansier said the rationale is the homes built between 1990 and the current date were built
at or above the flood elevation and should not be subject to flooding. Whereas homes
built prior to 1978 were most likely not built to the flood elevation and would be subject
to flooding.
Johnson summarized by saying a letter should have gone out to all lakeshore residents
affected in the flood plain. The City should lower the overall flood elevation and upgrade
the outlet. It is up to the City to fix it. Prior Lake should vision for growth.
Rye and Kansier clarified the 100 year flood elevation and fi-eeboard. They went on to
explain the State legislature is regulating what the City is doing. The City does not have
an option. If the City does not participate, they will not be able participate in the Flood
Insurance program and the residents will not be able to buy flood insurance.
John Titus, 5331 Frost Point Circle, called the Department of Natural Resources (DNR)
and talked to Bret Anderson who indicated to him the primary reason for the increase in
the flood plain was because of Prior Lake's massive growth and anticipated growth. The
impervious surface will cause more potential nmoff and flood damage. There have been
many discussions on the flood plain. Titus asked Mr. Anderson (DNR) what could be
done to alleviate the problem. Anderson gave the City of Buffalo as an example of
flooding. Titus suggested a spill way, letting the high water out of the lake. Titus
questioned if anyone has done a study to construct such a spill way. How can the City
exempt a few people from building since 1990 and not jeopardize the insurance?
L:\97FILES\97PLCOMM~PCM IN'xMN 101397.DOC 3
Commissioner Vonhof explained Prior Lake is the end of the watershed. People do not
realize what the watershed is comprised of and Prior Lake is one element of the entire
watershed.
Rye addressed the changes in ordinances and that the Watershed is currently revising and
updating their plans. The solution Mr. Titus is proposing is going to cost a lot of money.
The City does not know the Watershed's timeline.
Rick Johnson, 5283 Frost Point, noticed in the City's ordinance verbiage, "generally" is
omitted fi.om the DNR's.
Commissioner Stamson expla'med it was too vague and up to interpretation.
Mark Kubes, 5527 Frost Point, questioned the one foot freeboard affecting the flood
elevation. Rye and Kansier explained the flood plain regulations and insurance. The
ordinance is allowing the City and residents eligible for flood insurance. The DNR's
concern is preventing flood damage and safety. Their goal is to minimize damage to
property. The additional foot of freeboard is an additional foot of protection for everyone
involved. Mr. Kubes questioned remodeling and regulating Spring Lake flowing into
Prior Lake. Rye addressed the remodeling and explained the Planning Commission does
not address lake regulations. The Watershed District takes care of the entire watershed
area.
Commissioner Cramer asked staff for clarification on the legislation and the Army Corps
of Engineers. Rye explained the flood plain management program authorized by FEMA.
Every city has to be in compliance to be in the program to get flood insurance.
Rick Johnson stated he does not understand the FEIMA map or the dates. Johnson said he
talked to a civil engineer who told him the City cannot have more restrictive ordinances
than the State. Again, Rye explained the flood plain and the amendments.
Commissioner Criego clarified that anyone building between 1978 to 1990, should be
above the flood elevation. Buildings from 1990 to 1997, are covered under exemption.
Paul Kramer, 15310 Edgewater, said he came not knowing a lot about the issue but now
has a better understanding. He feels there should be more research and information
before a determination is made. Johnson questioned how many people were affected?
Rye asked what does he mean "who is affected?" Kramer felt if you built before 78 you
are forced to get insurance. Rye said nobody is forcing anyone to get insurance. The
mortgage companies may require it. It is not a requirement of either the City or State.
The revised flood study took some people out of the flood plain.
L:\97FILES\97PLCOMM~PCM IN~IMN 101397.DOC 4
Commissioner Criego clarified you do not have to get insurance if you are over the 908.9.
It only is restricted the degree of protection to your property. The City is following the
State guidelines for new structures in the flood plain.
Rye explained the City adopts roles consistent with the State regulations. The State
adopts a set of flood plain regulations. The City has to adopt a flood plain ordinance
consistent with those regulations. By doing so the City has made the property owners in
the community eligible to receive flood insurance. The City is not involved in providing
insurance. That is between the property owner and their insurance agent.
Rye gave examples of providing protection in the flood plain. Basically elevate.
Bob Bickett, 5241 Frost Point Circle, asked the Commissioners not to railroad the
citizens and give them time to understand what was going on. He knew this notice was in
the paper but did not understand what was going to be discussed tonight and that it was
going to affect everyone on the lake. His house was built in 1982 and stated he does not
know how to read the FEMA map. Bickett said he does not feel residents should have to
hire an engineer to figure out if they comply or not and the homeowners should be
notified by letters. The citizens would like to improve the value of their homes.
John Titus, 5331 Frost Point Circle, commented he asked Bret Anderson from the DNR
for clarification of the freeboard number. His understanding of the 908.9 is the average
water depth. We are all envisioning a perfectly pristine body of water which doesn't exist
in the real world. If we have a 2 foot wave then one foot above that is the peak of the
wave and all of us want to be out of the wave. It is a practical thing to add a foot to it.
The public heating was closed at 7:35 p.m.
Comments from Commissioners:
Vonhof:
· Lives in the flood plain and explained his experience with FEMA. He applied for a
LOMA (Letter of Map Amendment) through FEMA.
· He also explained to the public how to deal with FEMA.
· No private insurance company can write insurance outside a flood zone. If you are
not in the flood zone and try to get them to write a policy for you, they won't. That is
part of the issue why this is very critical.
· FEMA is a national program and is largely supported by our federal tax dollars.
Everyone should be concerned about this - even those who are not impacted.
The statutory change is correct. It makes sense.
· Redating the map is fine. Verbiage is okay.
· Asked staff with the one foot freeboard if the flood zones changed. Staff said zones
have been reduced.
· Pointed out the ever changing lake elevations.
· The only impact is the structures below the 908.9.
L:\97FILES\97PLCOMM~PCMINXMN I 01397.DOC 5
Kuykendall:
· The issue of notification of residents - the City follows the legal process. The time
and cost to the City to locate lakeshore property owners, especially absentee property
owners would be very high. Anything controversial hits the press.
· Did not have time to look into the matter until a few days ago, not against tabling.
· He would rather be informed from the Watershed District.
· The Watershed has the ability to tax the infrastructure but what is the impact?
The staff keeps the Commissioners informed from other Prior Lake Advisory Boards.
· The Planning Commission and staffhave be~n planning for growth. The Planning
Commissioners cannot control what goes on outside the city limits.
· More research has to be done by the Watershed District.
· Fewer people are impacted today with the proposal. It was more restrictive. This is
an improvement.
Criego:
· The new zoning ordinance public hearing is continued to November 24, 1997.
· The proposal does not affect the insurance.
· The problem is if you are in a flood plain and want to make changes to your home
you have to have protection.
· Clarifications of improvements.
· The State is dictating what has to be done. People in the flood plain need insurance.
Cramer:
· Greatest concern is the people who need flood insurance can still get flood insurance.
· Concurs with the rest of the Commissioners.
Stamson:
· The DNR has given their blessing on exempting the properties built fi.om 1990.
· Not all houses built before 1978 are in the flood plain.
· Support the amendments.
Onen Discussion:
Kuykendall:
· Thanks to staff for being sensitive with this issue and for getting the DNR to agree to
the amendments. It is a very positive move for the community. They were pm-active
with another agency.
· This is probably a communication issue. It has taken me an hour and a half to get to
this level of understanding. It has been very useful to me as an individual.
· Questioned the need to act on it tonight other than tabling to a future date.
· Appreciates all the information.
· Rye explained the City had to act on by November 17, 1997, to comply with FEMA.
· Feels the meeting should be continued to explain the process to the lakeshore public.
L:\97FILES\97PLCOMM\PCMINhMN 101397.DOC 6
Rye explained the legal process and timelines by the Federal, State and City
governments.
Vonhof:
· Feels it should not be delayed.
· Direct staff to send a letter to the Watershed and Lake Advisories for their input.
Cramer:
· Cannot support delaying this issue. The problems it will cause is too important due to
the lack of communication.
Stamson:
· The State is still mandating what the City has to do. But faced with the time
constraints, we have to vote on it.
Kuykendall:
We have to act on this as proposed but the question was one of timing. I thought time
would be available without a special meeting to give a better understanding or education
to the public. This should be discussed in a summary with graphics for 10 minutes at the
next meeting. We are caught in a time frame.
There was a brief discussion on tabling the issue and finally a decision made to make a
recommendation and have an informational update with the Watershed at the next
Planning Commission meeting October 27, 1997.
Vonhof:
· Do not delay.
· Suggest staff invite the Watershed District and Lake Advisory to comment on this
change of regulations to go to City Council.
· This should have been included before. The Watershed engineer should have been
here and would have been able to address a number of issues that came up.
Cramer:
· It is more important we address the issue right now. Appreciates the fact some people
feel it is ramroded through.
· Agreed with Commissioner Vonhof, the Commissioners just found out about this
issue.
· There is no benefit to waiting, the ramifications are far greater if residents cannot get
flood insurance.
Stamson:
· We can discuss this all we want but the fact is the State says here is what the City has
to do. The outcome is going to be the same.
· Understands the residents concern, and it would be nice to let them voice their
frustrations but the outcome will be the same.
L:\97FILES\97PLCOMM~PCMINhMN 101397.DOC 7
MOTION BY VONHOF, SECOND BY KUYKENDALL, TO RECOMMEND TO THE
CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF THE AMENDMENTS AS PROPOSED. THE
PLANNING COMMISSION ALSO REQUESTED THE FOLLOWING: 1) STAFF
SEND LETTER TO THE WATERSHED DISTRICT REQUESTING COMMENTS ON
THESE CHANGES WITH THEIR RECOMMENDATIONS TO BE FORWARDED TO
THE CITY COUNCIL; 2) STAFF SEND A LETTER TO THE LAKE ADVISORY
COMMITTEE REQUESTING COMMENTS TO THE CHANGES WITH THEIR
RECOMMENDATIONS TO BE FORWARDED TO THE CITY COUNCIL; 3) AN
INFORMATIONAL DISCUSSION ON FLOOD PLAIN ISSUES AT THE NEXT
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING ON OCTOBER 27, 1997, WHICH WOULD
INCLUDE THE WATERSHED AND LAKE ADVISORY COMMITTEE.
Commissioner Criego added the City Council should be prepared to accept testimony
relating to this amendment.
Vote taken signified ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
A break was called at 8:14 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 8:20 p.m.
5. Old Business:
Kuykendall questioned Item 8 of the Minutes from September 8, 1997, regarding the lake
tour homes that were not in compliance. Rye said staff did not have the specific
addresses of those home. Kuykendall stated he wanted the Minutes to reflect he is still
waiting for an answer from staff. "The Planning Commission spent time and effort to go
out and it was not get properly recorded as I was lead to believe. IfI have to climb out of
the boat and get some of these addresses I am going to do it. But I want to know this in
advance. Time is being wasted on this stuff. I consider that lake trip very important. I
guess we'll go out in a January storm and walk up and look at these addresses. I am
disappointed. I would appreciate to have minutes from the tour for our next meeting if
that is reasonable."
6. New Business:
Commissioner Kuykendall feels everyone should have better communication with the
public. Everyone should speak up in the microphones. We should also have the foresight
if we know the Watershed District has an impact or other related issue they should be
invited in advance, especially with a tight time frame. It would help the whole process of
communicating.
Mary Mirsh, 15432 Red Oaks Road, distributed a handout to the commissioners.
7. Announcements and Correspondence:
A. Downtown Steering Committee update.
L:\97FILES\97PLCOMMXPCM IN'MN 101397.DOC 8
Commissioner Criego will be the alternate for Commissioner Kuykendall at the October
20, 1997 Downtown Steering Committee meeting.
8. Adjournment:
MOTION BY KUYKENDALL, SECOND BY CRIEGO, TO ADJOURN THE
MEETING.
Vote taken signified ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
The meeting adjourned at 8:31 p.m.
Donald Rye
Director of Planning
Conn/e Carlson
Recording Secretary
L:\97FILES\97PLCOMM~PCMlNXMN 101397.DOC 9
PLANNING REPORT
AGENDA ITEM:
SUBJECT:
SITE:
PRESENTER:
REVIEWED BY:
PUBLIC HEARING:
DATE:
4A
CONSIDER IMPERVIOUS SURFACE VARIANCE FOR
WENDY WHITNEY, Case File #97-103
14407 WATERSEDGE TRAIL
JENNI TOVAR, PLANNER
JANE KANSlER, PLANNING COORDINATOR
YES X NO
OCTOBER 27, 1997
INTRODUCTION:
The applicant is proposing to construct a new 528 square foot detached garage
with additional driveway in the rear yard of property located at 14407
Watersedge Trail. There is no existing garage on the property. Variances were
granted for 5 foot side yard and 5' rear yard setbacks in 1990 for a garage.
However, no garage was ever built and the variance has since expired.
The existing house with deck is setback approximately 30 feet from the front
property line, 10 feet from the side property line to the north, approximately 17
feet from the side property line to the south.
The applicant is proposing to construct a 528 square foot detached garage in
the rear yard with a bituminous access driveway located along the side of the
principle structure to the garage in the back (Exhibit A). Existing impervious
surface is 28%. The proposed additions with impervious surface removal will
create an overall impervious surface of 35.5%. The Shoreland Ordinance allows
a maximum impervious surface coverage of not more than 30% (Section 5-8-3).
The proposed additional driveway will be located 5 feet from the property line.
Therefore, the applicant is requesting a 5.5% variance to impervious surface
coverage maximum to permit coverage of 35.5%, rather than the maximum
allowed of 30%.
DISCUSSION:
The lot is located in the subdivision known as Boudins Manor (1950) and is a
non-riparian lot. The house was constructed in 1978. The property is located
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372 1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
within the R-1 (Suburban Residential) and the SD (Shoreland Oveday) district.
This lot is 6,486 sq. feet, 47 feet wide at the street and 62 feet wide at the rear
lot line. Therefore, this lot is a substandard lot because it does not meet the
minimum lot area of 12,000 sq. feet or lot width of 75 feet for general
development lake non-riparian lots under the current Shoreland Ordinance.
The proposed garage will be within the building envelope (Exhibit B). The rear
yard setback for detached accessory structures is 10 feet (Section 5-4-1). The
applicant proposes to remove the shed (10 by 8) decreasing impervious surface
by 80 square feet resulting in the 35.5% impervious surface request.
The impervious surface can further be reduced by reducing the size of the
proposed garage to be 20 feet by 24 feet, or 480 square feet. Considering that a
standard garage door is 16 feet, this size is common for a two stall garage
allowing for automobile and equipment storage. Additional impervious surface
can be removed by removing the part of the driveway adjacent to the concrete
stoop and by narrowing the existing driveway one foot from 10 feet wide to 9 feet
wide. Due to the projection of the stoop, the location of these parts of the
driveway cannot be driven on. These reductions, along with the removal of
the shed, result in total impervious surface of 2121 square feet or 32.7%
(Exhibit C). The application as proposed consisted of total impervious surface
of 2288 with removal of the garage or 35.3%,
In comments received October 20, 1997, the DNR recommends that if the
variance to impervious surface is granted, that conditions be placed on the
property that reduce the overall rate of run-off/provide filtering of the run off.
The DNR is not opposed to the location of the garage.
VARIANCE HARDSHIP STANDARDS
1. Literal enforcement of the Ordinance would result in undue hardship
with respect to the property.
This criteria goes to whether reasonable use can be made of the property if
the Ordinance is literally enforced. In this case, the lot does have existing off-
street parking but no garage. As revised in Exhibit C, there is no reasonable
legal alternative for the reducing the variance request further.
2. Such unnecessary hardship results because of circumstances unique
to the property.
There are unique circumstances in this case. The size of the lot is
considerably smaller than the ordinance requires and was platted in 1950.
The applicant can meet all structural setbacks.
L:\97FILES\97VAR\97-103\97-103 PC.DOC
Page 2
3. The hardship is caused by provisions of the Ordinance and is not the
result of actions of persons presently having an interest in the property.
The lot is considered to be substandard. It is under 12,000 sq. feet in area
(6,486 sq. feet) and 47 feet wide. The location of the structure is of no
control of the applicant. The proposed garage meets all structural setbacks
as required by the Zoning Ordinance. The hardship is caused by the
provisions of the Ordinance and is not the result of the applicants proposed
building/drive locations.
4. The variance observes the spirit and intent of this Ordinance, produces
substantial justice and is not contrary to the public interest.
The spirit and intent of the impervious surface maximum in the Shoreland
District is to reduce storm water run-off, which will eventually drains into the
lake. The granting of the requested variances can meet the intent of the
Ordinance and be of the best public interest with condition that the applicant
revises the plan and survey to indicate reduced garage size and removal of
bituminous surface as indicated in Exhibit C and create a drainage swale to
decrease the rate of run-off as recommended by the DNR.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Approve the variances requested by the applicant, or approve any variances
the Planning Commission deems appropriate in the circumstances.
2. Table or continue discussion of the item for specific purpose.
3. Deny the application because the Planning Commission finds a lack of
demonstrated hardship under the zoning code criteria.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff has concluded that the intent of the applicant to construct a garage is
reasonable and the proposed revisions to the plan to decrease the impervious
surface to prove hardship does exists. This hardship is based on the size of the
lot and the non-existence of a garage. The intent of the ordinance can be met
with the two recommended conditions.
ACTION REQUIRED:
A motion adopting Resolution 97-17PC.
L:\97FILES\97VAR\97-103\97-103PC.DOC Page 3
RESOLUTION 97-17PC
A RESOLUTION APPROVING A 3 PERCENT VARIANCE REQUEST TO
PERMIT IMPERVIOUS SURFACE OF 33 PERCENT RATHER THAN THE
MAXIMUM ALLOWED OF 30 PERCENT FOR A PROPOSED GARAGE AND
EXPANDED DRIVEWAY ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 14407 WATERSEDGE
TRAIL FOR WENDY WHITNEY.
BE IT RESOLVED BY the Board of Adjustment of the City of Prior Lake, Minnesota;
FINDINGS
Wendy Whitney has applied for a variance from Section 5-8-3 of the City Code in
order to permit the construction of a 528 square foot detached garage and additional
bituminous driveway on property located in the R-1 (Suburban Residential) District
and the SD (Shoreland Overlay) District at the following location, to wit;
14407 Watersedge Trail, legally described as Lot 35, Boudins Manor, Scott
Connty, MN
1. The Board of Adjustment has reviewed the application for variance as contained in
Case #97-103 and held heatings thereon on October 27, 1997.
The Board of Adjustment has considered the effect of the proposed variance upon the
health, safety, and welfare of the community, the existing and anticipated traffic
conditions, light and air, danger of fire, risk to the public safety, the effect on property
values in the surrounding area and the effect of the 'proposed variance on the
Comprehensive Plan.
The applicant's request of 35.5% impervious surface can be reduced as indicated in
Exhibit C to 33%. The reduction is a result of reducing the garage size to 480 square
feet, removing the 80 square foot shed, removing bituminous driveway adjacent to the
stoop and narrowing the driveway to 9 feet prior to the stoop.
The granting of the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a
substantial property right of the applicant. The variance will not serve merely as a
convenience to the applicants, and is necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship as
no reasonable alternatives exist.
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447 4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTL/NITY EMPLOYER
5. The DNR has no recommendation on approval, but suggest if approved, a condition
such as a drainage swale to decrease rate of mn-off from the additional impervious
surface be constructed.
6. The contents of Plarming Case 97-103 are hereby entered into and made a part of the
public record and the record of decision for this case.
CONCLUSION
Based upon the Findings set forth above, the Board of Adjustment hereby approves the
following variances for the proposed garage and driveway as shown with revision in
Exhibit C;
1. A 3 percent variance to permit impervious surface coverage of 33 percent
instead of the maximum allowed of 30 percent.
The approval of the variances is contingent upon the following conditions:
A revised survey must be submitted, indicating the proposed changes to
decrease the impervious surface to 33% as indicated in Exhibit C and referred
to in the staffreport.
2. As recommend by the DNR, additional impervious surface must be diverted to
a swale or holding area to decrease the rate of mn-off.
Adopted by the Board of Adjustment on October 27, 1997.
ATTEST:
Anthony Stamson, Chair
Donald R. Rye, Planning Director
1:\97var\97-103va\97~017re.doc 2
~URVEY PREPARED FOR:
WENDY WHITNEY
14407 WATERSEOGE TRAIL
PRIOR LAKE, MN §537Z
Volley Surveying Co., P.A.
SUITE IZO-C ~ 16670 FRANKLIN TRAIL
FRANKLIN TRAIL OFFICE CONDOMINIUM
PRIOR LAKE ~ MINNESOTA 55372
TELEPHONE (612) 447- 2570
EXHIBIT A
PROPOSED GARAGE AND DRIVE AREA
x,\\ %
0 ZO 40
REV 10/9/97 TO CHANGE PROPOSED
GRADES ON GARAGE
· .~~:~,
CITY OF PRIOR LAKE
Impervious Surface Calculations
(To bo Submitted with Building Permit Application)
For All Properties Located in the Shoreland District (SD).
The Maximum Impervious Surface Coverage Permitted in 30 Percent.
Property Address Iqqoq
Lot Area ~oI O~/St~,
Sq Feet x 30%--
EXHIBIT A
PAGE 2'
LENGTH WIDTH SQ. FEET
HOUSE
ATTACHED GARAGE
TOTAL PRINCIPLE STRUCTURE.. ....................
(Oarage~
TOTAL DETACHED BUILDINGS .......................
; ~'~-.DRIVEWAY/PAVED AREAS
.~,o t'~-~ (Driver. lay-paved or not ''
(Sidewall//Parklng Areas)
TOTAL PAVED AREAS ......... ; ...............................
PATIOS/PORCHES/DECKS
(Open Decks W' mia, opening between
hoards, with a pervious surface below,
ara not considered to be impervious)
X
X
OTHE~ {~e~ · x
~ TOTAL OTHER .......................................................
TOTAL' IMPERVIOUS SURFACE
UNDE~ '
Date.
q - ~-3-"1
Phone#
WENDY WHITNEY
~440Z W/~TERSEDGE TRAIL
PRIOR LAKEr MN. 555?;)
vuucy oulveylllg L,O.,
SUITE I20-C ~ 16670 FRANKLIN TRAIL
FRANKLIN TRAIL OFFICE CONDOMINIUM
PRIOR LAKE ~ MINNESOTA 555?2
TELEPHONE (61:)) 447-2570
EXHIBIT B
LEGAL BUILDING ENVELOPE
0 2o
SCALE tN FEET
WENDY WHITNEY
14407 WATERSEDGE TRAIL
PRIOR LAKE, MN, 55372
Valley Surveying Co., P.A.
SUITE IgO-C ~ 16670 FRANKLIN TRAIL
FRANKLIN TRAIL OFFICE CONDOMINIUM
PRIOR LAKE ~ MINNESOTA 55372
TELEPHONE (6J2) 447- 2570
EXHIBIT C
REVISED ' PLAN WITH AREA TO BE REMOVED TO DECREASE IMPERVIOUS SURFACE
0 20 40
SCALE IN FEET
REV. 10/9/97 TO CIIANG[ PROPOSEO
GRADES ON GARAGE
SENT BY: DNR METRO; 10-21-97 10:04; 6127727573 -> 8124474245;
Minnesota Deparlment of Natural Resources
Metro Waters - 1:200 Warner Road, St. Paul, MIW 55106-6793
Telephone: (612) 772-7910 Fax: (612) 772-7977
Ids. Jtumi Tovar
City of Prior Lak=
16200 Easle Creek Ave. SE
Pri~ Lake. N'24 55372
MATrSON IMPERVIOUS SURFACE AND SIDEYARD SETI'IACK VARIANCE RI~QIjEST. CITY OF
PRIOR LAKE, SCOTT COUNTY
WI4ITNEY IMPERVIOUS SURFACE VARIANCE REQUEST. CITY OF PRIOR LAKE. SCOTT
COUNTY
De~Ma. Tov~.
The Deparonent of Natural R.~aourm=~ (DHR) h~ reviewed ~he hfformaiion you submitted mgardlng th~ above
ref~renvagl requesl~ t~ vary Ibc shoreland staadards &aline with impervious surface and sick. yard scibscka in the City of
Prior Lake. B.,,.~ on our review of the mqu~s~, dale, and map~ of thc arca, wg havc thc following c.'~-~t~ lo off,=':
Bo~h applicants ~r= applying fc~ va,'i~u~ which would allow s'u'ni]~' impervious surlk~ ~ relative to ih~ City of
P,~or I.,lm's Ordln~m~a~. Mr. Matlmu has applied for a 6.5% v~-u:e ~ Ms. Whimoy has n:quest~l $.5*f. Al~o~,h
dz~ proposed ~ ~p~ ~ be a ~ p~ge ~ ~afi~ ~ ~ Ci~'s Or~, it ~d ~ ~ ~at ~
Ci~ of~ I~c's ~ is ~y 1~ ~cfi~ ~ ~ ~ ~s f~ ~ag~t ~ s~l~
ifa variane~ is granted, we suggest that conditions be ,,4,q,.,4 In o/f-s~t the impacts of ibc ~dditional impervious surface
men. O~ such ea:~iiiion would b~ 1~ rea:luke Ii~ laudowner to ~re~ an sr~on si~, sugh as a sr~ss s~ale, whidx will
initially ezmtaln wnmr ~xl rgl~.~,g it at &:r.r~a.s=:l rate, as well ~, l~lp to a~t as a filter for ~lirxg=nLs ancitor pol{ulant~.
The DNR has no cone.~a'ns regarding Mr, Mattson's sideyard setback variance request provided that all other .setbacks
Thank you for the opportunity to commenL Plcas~ conhud mc at 772-7910 should you have quc:~ions.
NOTICE OF HEARING FOR THE FOLLOWING VARIANCES;
1. A 5.5% VARIANCE TO PERMIT IMPERVIOUS SURFACE
COVERAGE OF 35.5% INSTEAD OF THE PERMITTED 30%
RELATED TO THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW DETACHED GARAGE AND
ADDITIONAL DRIVEWAY AREA ON PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE RI-
SUBURBAN RESIDENTIAL AND SD-SHORELAND DISTRICTS.
You are hereby notified that the Prior Lake Planning Commission will hold a hearing at
Prior Lake Fire Station #1, located at 16776 Fish Point Road SE (Southwest of the
intersection of C.R. 21 and Fish Point Road), on: Monday, October 27, 1997, at 6:30
p.m. or as soon thereafter as possible.
APPLICANT:
Wendy Whitney
14407 Watersedge Trail NE
Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372
SUBJECT SITE:
Lot 35, Boudins Manor, Scott County, Minnesota, also known as
14407 Watersedge Trail NE.
REQUEST:
The applicant proposes the construction of a new detached garage
to be located in the rear yard of the subject property. The proposed
construction will result in the following requested variances:
A 5.5% VARIANCE TO PERMIT IMPERVIOUS SURFACE
COVERAGE OF 35.5% INSTEAD OF THE PERMITTED
30%.
The Planning Commission will review the proposed construction and requested variance
against the following criteria found in the Zoning Ordinance.
1. Literal enforcement of the Ordinance would result in undue hardship with
respect to the property.
2. Such unnecessary hardship results because of circumstances unique to the
property.
3. The hardship is caused by provisions of the Ordinance and is not the result of
actions of persons presently having an interest in the property.
16200 E~7~[~.~(,a~LO?t~92~l~Y,40~t~,~75g033~.~qq / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
4. The variance observes the spirit and intent of this Ordinance, produces
substantial justice and is not contrary to the public interest.
If you are interested in this issue, you should attend the hearing. Questions related to this
hearing should be directed to the Prior Lake Planning Department by calling 447-4230
between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. Monday through Friday. The Planning
Commission will accept oral and/or written comments. Oral or written comments should
relate to how the proposed construction and requested variances are or are not consistent
with the above-listed criteria.
Prior Lake Planning Commission
Date Mailed: October 16, 1997
L:\97FILES\97VAR\97-053\9753VAPN.DOC97-103PN.DOC
2
SURVEY PREPARED FOR:
WENDY WHITNEY
~4407 WATERSEDOE TRAIL
PRIOR LAKE, MN 55372
Volley Surveying Co., PA.
SUITE IRO-C ~ ~6670 FRANKLIN TRAIL
FRANKLIN TRAIL OFFICE CONDOMINIUM
PRIOR LAKE f MINNESOTA 55372
TELEPHONE (612) 447- 2570
0 20
16200 Eagle
Planning Case File No. C~ _/~ ~
Property Identification No. R27 11903 10
City of Prior Lake £~'
LAND USE APPLICATION
,.E. / Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Phone (612) 447-4230, Fax (612) 447-4245
Type of Application: ,
[] Rezoning, from (present zonin~'~
to (pronosed zoning'l
[] Amendment to City Code, Comp. Plan or City Ordinance
[] Subdivision of Land
[] Administrative Subdivision
[] Conditional Use Permit
~Variance
[] Other:
Brief description of proposed project (attach additional
sheets/narrative if desired)
*Please see attached explanation of
varience request.
Applicable Ordinance Section(s):
Applicant(s):
Address: F'~
Home Phone:
7'~. ~ .~'. 'i~C~L Work Phone:
Property Owner(s) [If different from Applicants]:.
Address:
Home Phone:.
Type of Ownership: Fee
Work Phone:
Contract for Deed __ Purchase Agreement
Legal Description of Property (At~ach a copy if there is not enough space on this sheet):
r~lD: R~1190310
To the best of my knowledge the information provided in this application and other material submitted is correct. In
addition, I have read the relevant sections of the Prior Lake Ordinance and procedural guidelines, and understand that
applications will not be processed until deemed complete by the Planning Director or assignee.
A~plicant: s S~Sg}nature ~- Date
Fee Owner's Signature
Date
THIS SPACE TO BE FILLED IN BY THE PLANNING DIRECTOR OR DESIGNEE
PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVED DENIED DATE OF HEARING
CITY COUNCIL APPROVED DENIED DATE OF HEARING
CONDITIONS:
Signature of Planning Director or Designee
Date
lu.app2.do¢
City of Prior Lake Planning Commission
16200 Eagle Creek Ave
Prior Lake, MN 55372
Wendy K. Whitney
14407 Watersedge Trail N.E.
Prior Lake, MN 55372
440-7356
14 O~ober1997
To whom it may concern on the planning commission,
The following is submitted for your review:
Reason: Impervious Surface Variance for a 22' x24' detached garage.
The Proposed Garage location has been selected, as seen in the survey, to minimize the need for any
variances with the exception of Impervious surface. All possible considerations have been made to
minimize the impact by locating the garage as close as possible to the house to keep the
driveway as short as possible. I feel the size of the lot causes "undue hardship" when trying to comply
with the impervious surface regulation. This property does not have a garage which is
a necessity during our Minnesota winters. I have read the four criteria for for determining approval or
denial of the request and believe that the variance should be granted due to the substandard lot size.
Please note the shed would be removed before completion of the garage to reduce the impervious
surface overage.
House 792 Sq. Ft.
Driveway 968 Sq. Ft.
Prop Gar. 528 Sq. Ft.
Total 2288 Sq. Ft.
Total over 342 Sq. Feet or 35.23%
Thank you for considering my request.
Sincerely,
WendyK. W ' y ~/
V
MEMORANDUM
DATE: October 24, 1997
TO: PLANNING COMMISS,I,~
FROM: Jenni Tovar, Planner ..~"~
RE: Variance Hardship Criteria
CC: Don Rye, Planning Director; Jane Kansier,
Planning Coordinator
At Monday's upcoming Planning Commission meeting you will be
reviewing two variance requests as they relate to proposed two car
detached garages within the shoreland district. The variances requested
are for impervious surface to exceed 30%. The staff reports recommend
approval for each of the variances based on the absence of any garage
on the properties and a two car garage (480 square feet) being
reasonable.
Certainly, the garages could be modified to one stall garages resulting in
reduced/eliminated variance. In Mr. Mattson's case a one stall garage
(12' by 20' or 240 square feet) would still require a variance, impervious
surface being 32.1%. In Ms. Whitney's case, a single stall garage of the
same size and with recommended reductions to impervious surface,
would result in 29% impervious surface.
The Planning Commission must determine if a one or two stall garage is
reasonable when it comes to justifying the variance hardship criteria. It
has been noted at previous meetings {Vaughn Lemke variance) that
having no garage in Minnesota winters is an undue hardship. Previous
setback variance requests have been denied based on smaller house
footprints being reasonable within the legal building envelope (Pinnacle
Partner bluff setback variance). However, you may feel the proposed
garages could be reduced to one stall garages to eliminate or reduce the
variance requests without causing undue hardship.
L:~97FILES~97PLCOMM\PCCORRS\GARAGE.DOC
October 23, 1997
Prior Lake Planning Commission
16200 Eagle Creek Avenue SE
Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372
Su~e~:
Variance(s) requested by Brian Mattson
16575 Inguadona Beach Circle SW
Prior Lake, MN 55372
Dear Prior Lake Planning Commission:
We are the owners of Lot #26. We reside across the street from Mattson's (Lot #29)
home.
We have given this request a lot of thought. We have discussed this matter with our
four sons and others to get their opinions and the consensus seems to be that this is not
a move in our best interest.
We would like you to consider the following in making your decision:
To begin with, the road around Inguadona Circle is very narrow! Definitely a
problem in the winter. Heavy rains, snow removal and drainage from melting
snow have presented a problem for us.
The past two years (it seems much longer) two of the homes (Lots 5 and 4)
have been undergoing complete remodeling. The lots owned by Bill
Bradstad were sold and a new house built (Lots 7 and 6).
Since all this has been going on, we have been having more drainage
problems. Along with the water runoff (lots of rain this summer), we've been
coping with sand, soil that the water brings with it. What happens is that we
are "in the middle" (Lot 10 too). We get the drainage from both directions.
The water not only runs into our yard, but also collects on the road in puddles
which, in below zero weather, freezes making it a hazardous situation.
Okay, so now if the variance is granted, we have another problem. If the
Mattsons are allowed to put in a driveway, we are very concerned once again
about drainage. What happens to all the water that will be running down this
long driveway? Where is it going to go? It seems to us it will create an even
bigger problem than we had before.
We are also concerned about snow disposal. Where will the accum~3ted.~--'"~L~
snow from the driveway be put? Will this be shoveled onto Lot 26 or will it be
brought down to the road where persons who do the plowing are already
having difficulty finding a place to put the snow. While it (Lot 26) is still a
vacant lot, this wouldn't be a problem; but should it be sold, future owners
may be very unhappy about this aspect.
We realize we already have a drainage problem, but do not feel we should
have to deal with additional complications.
Should we decide to sell Lot 26 or decide to build on it, would you then grant
a variance on the adjacent property if we requested it or (buyer requested it)?
Putting ourselves in a buyer's position, we feel we would have reservations about buying
a lot where the driveway is so close to the lot line. It certainly wouldn't add to the value
of the property.
Hopefully, you will consider our reasons for objecting to Brian Mattson's request for this
variance.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
enneth Falkum
16568 Inguadona Beach Circle SW
Pdor Lake, Minnesota 55372
Evelyn Falku~
PS: The notice for this hearing came as a complete surpdse since Brian
Mattson had indicated in early June (or before) that it was our decision to
make. He apparently changed his mind.
PLANNING REPORT
AGENDA ITEM:
SUBJECT:
SITE:
PRESENTER:
REVIEWED BY:
PUBLIC HEARING:
DATE:
5B
CONSIDER SIDE YARD SETBACK AND IMPERVIOUS
SURFACE VARIANCES FOR BRIAN MATTSON, Case
File #97-053
16575 INGUADONA BEACH CIRCLE
JENNI TOVAR, PLANNER
JANE KANSlER, PLANNING COORDINATOR
YES X NO
OCTOBER 27, 1997
INTRODUCTION:
As the Planning Commission will recall, this was brought before the commission
in June and continued at the request of the applicant for plan revisions to reduce
the overall variance requests. Brian Mattson is proposing to construct a new
detached garage and access driveway. There is no existing garage on the
property. No previous variances have been granted.
The existing house with deck is setback approximately 22 feet from the front
property line, 9.8 feet from the side property line to the north, approximately 10
feet from the side property line to the south.
The applicant is proposing to construct a 480 square foot detached garage in
the rear yard with a bituminous access driveway located along the side of the
principle structure to the garage in the back (Exhibit A). Existing impervious
surface is 28%. The proposed additions with impervious surface removal will
create an overall impervious surface of 36.5%. The Shoreland Ordinance allows
a maximum impervious surface coverage of not more than 30% (Section 5-8-3).
The proposed driveway will be located 2 feet from the property line. The
City Code requires a minimum driveway setback of 5 feet from the side yard
property line (Section 5-5-5). Therefore, the applicants are requesting a 6.5%
variance to impervious surface coverage maximum to permit coverage of
36.5%, rather than the maximum allowed of 30% and a 3 foot variance to the
driveway side yard setback to allow a 2 foot driveway setback rather than
the required setback of 5 feet.
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
DISCUSSION:
The lot is located in the subdivision known as Inguadona Beach (1924) and is a
non-riparian lot. The house was constructed in 1977 and a deck was added in
1989. The original house building permit does not indicate if a garage was part of
the structure (Exhibit B). The property is located within the R-1 (Suburban
Residential) and the SD (Shoreland Overlay) district. This lot is 5,607 sq. feet,
55 feet wide at the street and 51 feet wide at the rear lot line. Therefore, this lot
is a substandard lot because it does not meet the minimum lot area of 12,000 sq.
feet and lot width of 75 feet for general development lake non-riparian lots under
the current Shoreland Ordinance. No previous variances have been granted on
this property.
The proposed garage will be within the building envelope (Exhibit C) however,
the driveway will be 2 foot from the property line. Generally, the city maintains a
5 foot drainage and utility easement on side property lines. However, such
easements were not granted when the property was platted in 1924. Such is
usually the case in older plats. The issues of drainage onto the adjacent
property is a concern. Although, the adjacent property to the north is vacant
now, there is no guarantee that it will continue to be vacant in the future. Also
snow storage will be a significant problem for a driveway located 2 foot from the
property line.
The applicant originally proposed to construct the garage with an 8 foot wide
bituminous driveway 1 foot from the side property line. Since the first hearing in
June, the applicant has proposed to reduce the impervious surface by removing
the existing driveway in the front yard, removing the shed, decreasing the width
of the proposed driveway to 7 feet and by reducing the proposed turn around
area by 60 square feet. The resulting impervious surface is 36.5% compared to
the original request of 54%. In addition to the reduced impervious surface, the
side yard setback of the proposed driveway is 2 feet compared to the original
proposal of I foot.
The DNR responded to the original variance request in a letter dated June 19,
1997. The DNR was not opposed to the location of the proposed garage, and
recommended removal of the existing cbncrete drive to reduce the impervious
surface. In comments on the revised request, the DNR recommends that if the
variance to impervious surface is granted, that conditions be placed on the
property that reduce the overall rate of run-off/provide filtering of the run off.
The DNR is not opposed to the side yard setback variance request.
L:\97FILES\97VAR\97-053\97-53PC4.DOC
Page 2
VARIANCE HARDSHIPSTANDARDS
1. Literal enforcement of the Ordinance would result in undue hardship
with respect to the property.
This criteria goes to whether reasonable use can be made of the property if
the Ordinance is literally enforced. In this case, the lot does have existing off-
street parking but no garage. As revised, there is no reasonable legal
alternative for the reducing the variance request further.
2. Such unnecessary hardship results because of circumstances unique
to the property.
There are unique circumstances in this case. The size of the lot is
considerably smaller than the ordinance requires and was platted in 1924.
The applicant has reduced the impervious surface 973 square feet resulting
in a decrease to impervious surface of 17.5%. The applicant can meet all
structural setbacks. The variance to side yard setback for the driveway
cannot be eliminated. Due to the placement of the existing structure, the
driveway cannot be placed on the south side of the house without entirely
removing the stairs from the deck.
3. The hardship is caused by provisions of the Ordinance and is not the
result of actions of persons presently having an interest in the property.
The lot is considered to be substandard. It is under 12,000 sq. feet in area
(5,607 sq. feet) and 86 feet wide. The location of the structure is of no
control of the applicant. The applicant has considerably reduced the variance
requests to present hardship that is beyond the control of the applicant via
design/placement of the proposed garage and driveway. The hardship is
caused by the provisions of the Ordinance and is not the result of the
applicants proposed building and drive locations.
4. The variance observes the spirit and intent of this Ordinance, produces
substantial justice and is not contrary to the public interest.
The spirit and intent of the impervious surface maximum in the Shoreland
District is to reduce storm water run-off, which will eventually drains into the
lake. The intent of the 5 foot side yard setback for driveways is to protect
drainage and utility easements and to allow for snow storage and automobile
overhangs. The granting of the requested variances can meet the intent of
the Ordinance and be of the best public interest with condition that the
applicant create a drainage swale to decrease the rate of run-off as
recommended by the DNR and if the applicant obtains an easement from the
adjacent property owner for snow storage.
L:\97FILES\97VAR\97-053\97-53PC4.DOC Page 3
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Approve the variances requested by the applicant, or approve any variances
the Planning Commission deems appropriate in the circumstances.
2. Table or continue discussion of the item for specific purpose.
3. Deny the application because the Planning Commission finds a lack of
demonstrated hardship under the zoning code criteria.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff has concluded that the intent of the applicant to construct a garage is
reasonable and the revisions to the plan to decrease the impervious surface and
driveway setback have proven that hardship does exists. This hardship is based
on the size of the lot and the non-existence of a garage. The intent of the
ordinance can be met with the two recommended conditions.
ACTION REQUIRED:
A motion adopting Resolution 97-15PC.
L:\97FILES\97VAR\97-053\97-53PC4.DOC
Page 4
RESOLUTION 97-15PC
A RESOLUTION APPROVING A 3 FOOT VARIANCE REQUEST TO PERMIT
A 2 FOOT SIDE YARD SETBACK RATHER THAN THE MINIMUM
REQUIREMENT OF 5 FEET AND A 6.5 PERCENT VARIANCE REQUEST TO
PERMIT IMPERVIOUS SURFACE OF 36.5 PERCENT RATHER THAN THE
MAXIMUM ALLOWED OF 30 PERCENT FOR A PROPOSED GARAGE AND
DRIVEWAY ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 16575 INGUADONA BEACH
CIRCLE FOR BRIAN MATTSON.
BE IT RESOLVED BY the Board of Adjustment of the City of Prior Lake, Minnesota;
FINDINGS
1. Brian Mattson has applied for a variance from Section 5-5-5 and Section 5-8-3 of the
City Code in order to permit the construction of a 480 square foot detached garage
and bituminous access driveway on property located in the R-1 (Suburban
Residential) District and the SD (Shoreland Overlay) District at the following
location, to wit;
16575 Inguadona Beach Circle, legally described as Lot 29, Inguadona Beach,
Scott County, MN
1. The Board of Adjustment has reviewed the application for variance as contained in
Case #97-053 and held hearings thereon on June 23, 1997 and October 27, 1997.
The Board of Adjustment has considered the effect of the proposed variance upon the
health, safety, and welfare of the community, the existing and anticipated traffic
conditions, light and air, danger of fire, risk to the public safety, the effect on property
values in the surrounding area and the effect of the proposed variance on the
Comprehensive Plan.
The applicant originally requested impervious surface of 54% and a driveway setback
of 1 foot. At the June 23, 1997 hearing, the applicant requested the hearing be
continued until a revised survey could be submitted. The applicant has revised the
driveway setback and proposed impervious surface by removing the existing
driveway and shed and reducing the width of the proposed driveway
4. The granting of the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a
substantial property right of the applicant. The variance will not serve merely as a
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
convenience to the applicants, and is necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship as
no reasonable alternatives exist.
5. The DNR has no recommendation on approval, but suggest if approved, a condition
such as a drainage swale to decrease rate of mn-off fi.om the additional impervious
surface be constructed.
6. The contents of Planning Case 97-053 are hereby entered into and made a part of the
public record and the record of decision for this case.
CONCLUSION
Based upon the Findings set forth above, the Board of Adjustment hereby approves the
following variances for the proposed garage and driveway as shown in Exhibit A;
1. A 3 foot variance permitting a 2 foot driveway setback fi'om the side yard
instead of the required 5 foot setback.
2. A 6.5 percent variance to permit impervious surface coverage of 36.5 percent
instead of the maximum allowed of 30 pement.
The approval of the variances is contingent upon the following conditions:
1. A revised survey must be submitted, indicating the applicants proposed
changes to decrease the impervious surface to 36.5%.
2. A minimum 3 foot drainage easement must be obtained and recorded, for the
applicant's snow storage and drainage, on Lot 26, Inguadona Beach.
3. As recommend by the DNR, additional impervious surface must be diverted to
a swale or holding area to decrease the rate of mn-off.
Adopted by the Board of Adjustment on October 27, 1997.
ATTEST:
Anthony Stamson, Chair
Donald R. Rye, Planning Director
l:\97var\97-053va\97-015re.doe
2
BRIAN MATTSON
16575 INGUADONA BEACH CIRCLE
PR[OR LAKE~ MN. 55372
Volley Surveying Co., P.A.
SUITE 120-C , 16670 FRANKLII~ TRAIL
FRANKLIN TRAIL OFFICE CONDOMINIUM
PRIOR LAKE, MINNESOTA 55372
TELEPHONE (6J2) 447-257'0
EXHIBIT A
S89OlB'OB"E
DESCRIPTION:
hot 29, "IN(~3ADONA BEACH", Scott County, Minnesota. Also showing th~ location of
the existing improvem.~- s and proposed addition, this 16th day of Feb. 1996.
NC~ES' Benchmark 936.15 walkout elevatio~ of the existing house.
Net lot area = 5,607 sq. ft.
Net existing_ lot coverage = 28.0 %
Pcoposed net lot coverage = 53.G"/,
9~46.7 DENOTES EXISTING GRADE ELEVATION
(940. E) DENOTES PROPOSED FINISHED GRADE ELEVATION
~ DENOTES PROPOSED DIRECTION OF SURFACE DRAINAGE
BET GARAGE SLAB AT EL. 940.34
SET TOP OFBLOCK OF GARAGE AT EL. B4Z82
0 20 40
EXHIBIT A
CITY OF PRIOR LAKE PAGE 2
Impervious Surface Calculations
(To be Submitted with Building Permit Application)
For All Properties Located in the Shoreland District (SD).
The Maximum Impervious Surface Coverage Permitted in 3 0 Percent;
Property Address
LotArea ~,(eo'3 . Sq. Feet x 30% = .............. lh,~b'z,D
***************************************************************************
LENGTH WIDTH SQ. FEET
HOUSE .~..~ ..,x ,7_.0, .. -(~e,q
ATTACHED GARAGE x =
TOTAL PRINCIPLE STRUCTURE..' ....................
DETACHEDBLDGS~ -~.cI x ~o
TOT~ DETACHED BUILDINGS .......................
D~WAY/PAVED AREAS ['7 4- 7__0
(Driveway-paved or not) 'Z.% X ,~ = ~ ~"Z-.
(Sidewalk/Parking Areas) '2.. ,~ x ~5 =
4.5 ' -/---~--
TOTAL PAVED AREAS.....~ ........... ; .......................
PATIOS?PORCHES/DECKS
(Open Decks 'A" min. opening between
boards, with a pervious surface below,
are not considered to be impervious)
TOTAL DECKS ........................................................
x '~oq
TOTAL OTHER....; ..................................................
TOTAL IMPERVIOUS SURFACE
Prepared. Byq q\\-e,~ ~ ~ ,c<,,eqj ~
Company
Date
Phone
EXHIBIT A
REVISIONS
BRIAN MATTSON
1657'5 INGUADONA BEACH CIRCLE
PRIOR LAKE~ MN. 5537'2
Volley Surveying Co., P.A.
SUITE 120-C , 16670 FRANKLIN TRAIL
FRANKL,~ TRA,L OFF, CE CONO0~',~,~"~ EXHIBIT C
PRIOR LAKE, MINNESOTA 55372
TELEPHONE (612} 44?-25?0
LEGAL BUILDING ENVELOPE
DESCRIPTION:
Lot 29, ,INGOADONA BEACH", Scott COUnty, Minnesota. Also showing th~ ~ocatlon of
the existing imp~ovem~- s and proposed addition, this 16th day of Feb. 1996.
N~'~ES' Benchmark 936.15 walkout eleva~io~ Of the existing house.
SENT BY: DNR METRO; 10-21-97 10:04; 6127727573 => 6124474245;
Minnesota Dcparh'nent of Natural Resources
Metro Waters - 1200 Warner Road, St. Paul, 1VIN 55106-6793
Telephone; (612) 772-7910 Fax: (612) 772-797"/
October 20, 1997
M.~, Jc~ni Tovar
Ci~ o/Prior L~.~
16200 Eagle Crcr. k A'~. SE
Prio~ Lake, M.N 55372
RE'. MATTSON IIvlPk'RVIOUS SURFACE AND SIDI~YARD SETBACK VARIANCE RU~UI~ST. CITY OF
PRIOR LAXE. SCOTT COUIqTY
WI-HI'NEY IMPERVIOUS SURFACE V^RIAIqCE R,EQUI~S'I', CITY OF PRIOR LAKE, SCOTT
COUNTY
De~l~Is. Tov~:
Both applicants are applying fca' variants which would allow similar imp~'vious sur~t~ ira:rea~s r~lalive to/he City of
ptio~ l.ak~'s Ordlnanae. Mr. Ma~ has applied for st 6.5% variance and Ms. Whltn~y has mqtu=st~d $.5%. Although
~ propo,s~l in~ appears ~ be a ~n~ll pnrc~nl~ge in r~g. atlcm to ll~ City's Ordinance, it should bi: hoLed Ihat th~
City of Prior I,~e's ordinance is currently less restrictiw than ih* stat~-wid, standards for management of sboreland
areas which require n maxlrnmat imperviou~ suli'lme coversge of lots no ~ than 25~'i.
Ifa variance is 8rantnd, we suggest that conditions be added ~o off-set the impacts of the additional impervious suffac~
area. On~ such ~tion would b~ to require th~ landowner to ~ an area on sitn, such a.s · 8r~,s.s swale, which will
initially canmln water and r~l=a.~ it at d~rcn..~d rat~, as w~ll as, h*lp to a~l as a filt~r for s~xtim~nts and/or pollutants.
The DIqR has no conch'ns regarding Mr. Mattson's side'/and setbsek variance req~s~ provide! ~hat ~dl other
arc n~l
Thank you for the opportunity to co~mumt Plca.,~ ctmi-,,t mc at 772-7910 should you have questions.
Pat Lynoh ~ ~
ar*a I Iydrologist~
Y: DNR METRO; 6-19-97 10:34; 6127727573 => 6124474245; #t/2
Minnesota l)cpal-tmcn! t)f Natural Resottrces
Metro Waters - 1200 Warner Road, St. Paul, MN 55106-6793
Telephone: (612) 772-7910 Fax: (612) 772-7977
Junc 19, 1997
Mr. {)on Kyc
Planning Director
City of Prior L~kc
16200 Eagle Creek Avenue
Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-171 4
poet-It~ Fax Note 7671 Pate
RE: HINES SETBACK VARIANCE REQUEST (SPRING LAKE) AND MATTSON SIDEYARD AND
IMPEKVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE VARIANCE REQUEST
Dear Mr. Rye:
I have received the hearing notices for the subject variance rcquests whicli 4511 be considered by the Prior Lake Planning
Commission on June 23. 1997. Pie(lac include th= following comments into thc official record oft.he hearing.
HINES OllW SETBACK VARIANCE REOUEST
Thc city of Prior Lake recently amended their ordin,'mce to refle(:t a relaxation of tho lake setback standard for Prior
and Spring Lakes. The required setback is 75'. It is recommended the variance a.~ requested bc denied. The deck si/.e
depicted on the survey which accompanied the hearing notice appears to have placed little regard for thc setback
requirement in its design, I note thc structures on either side of the Hines' property arc setback at 51' m~d 46'. Thc
DNR recommends the applicant re-design the proposed improvements to meet the required setback. There appears
ample buildablc area to thc west mad north of the existing structure. In addition, the property currently has a deck. If
the exLqting d=gk is in a state of disrepair, the DNR. is not opposed to reconstruction at the existing location, and to the
existing dimension~ of the current d,¢k. It will be difficult to arg~ue hardship in this case.
MATTgON IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE AND SIDEyARD SI~TBACK VARIANCE.
The subject lot is very small (5,607 square fcc0, and is relatively narrow. The potential for additional development
on the lot without the need for multiple variances is lh~xired. The DNR. is not opposed to the construction ora garage
at the proposed location, provided an equal amotmt of impervious surfaco is removed. It appears that there is a
significant amount of ~onarct~ on the west side of the pruperty which could be rcmoved to balance the additional
impervious of the proposed new garage. Another option, perhaps more suitable in terms of impervious surface, would
bc to construct a garage on the existing concrete slab. This would result in the elimination of thc need for variances
from impervious surface and from the sideyard setback It v~uld, however, most likely require a variance from the road
setback. The DNR would not be opposed to thc road setback variance. As proposed, th~ DNP,, rccommcnds denial
of the varianc~ for impervious surface covcrago of 54%,
SENT BY: DNR METRO; 6-19-97 10:35; 6127727573 => 6124474245;
.rung 19. 1997
page 2
Please cater [hesc DNK objectiolis into thc hcaring r~cord, if you have ~my questions or conm~cnts regarding DNR
review oft ha panding shorclnnd issues, please call mc at 772-7910.
Sincerely,
Pau'ick J. Lynch Il[
Area Hydrologist
Planning Case File No. ~ 7-053
Property Identification No.
City of Prior Lake
LAND USE APPLICATION
16200 Eagle Creek Avenue S.E. / Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Phone (612) 447-4230, Fax (612) 447-4245
Type of Application:
[] Rezoning, from (present zoninn~
to (nrooosed zoning)
[] Amendment to City Code, Comp. Plan or City Ordinance
[] Subdivision of Land
[] Administrative Subdivision
[] Conditional Use Permit
Variance
[] Other:
Brief description of proposed p roj eot (attach additional
sheets/narrative if desired)
Applicable Ordina.nce Section(s):
Applicant(s):
Address:
Home Phone:
Work Phone:
Property Owner(s) [If different from Applicants]:
Address:
Home Phone:
Type of Ownership: Fee__
Work Phone:
Contract for Deed __ Purchase Agreement
Legal Description of Property (Attach a copy if there is not enough space on this sheet):
To the best of my knowledge the information provided in this application and other material submitted is correct. In
addition, I have read the relevant sections of the Prior Lake Ordinance and procedural guidelines, and understand that
applications will not be processed until deemed complete by the Planning Director or assignee.
Applicant's Signature Date
Fee Owner's Signature
Date
THIS SPACE TO BE FILLED IN BY THE PLANNING DIRECTOR OR DESIGNEE
PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVED DENIED DATE OF HEARING
CITY COUNCIL APPROVED DENIED DATE OF HEARING
CONDITIONS:
Signature of Planning Director or Designee
Date
lu-app2.doc
NOTICE OF HEARING FOR THE FOLLOWING VARIANCES;
1. A 6.5% VARIANCE TO PERMIT IMPERVIOUS SURFACE
COVERAGE OF 36.5% INSTEAD OF THE PERMITTED 30%;
2. A 3 FOOT DRIVEWAY SIDEYARD SETBACK VARIANCE TO
PERMIT A DRIVEWAY SETBACK OF 2 FEET INSTEAD OF THE
REQUIRED 5 FEET FROM THE SIDE LOT LINE;
ALL RELATED TO THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW DETACHED GARAGE
AND DRIVEWAY ON PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE RI-SUBURBAN
RESIDENTIAL AND SD-SHORELAND DISTRICTS
You are hereby notified that the Prior Lake Planning Commission will hold a heating at
Prior Lake Fire Station #1, located at 16776 Fish Point Road SE (Southwest of the
intersection of C.R. 21 and Fish Point Road), on: Monday, October 27, 1997, at 6:30
p.m. or as soon thereafter as possible.
APPLICANT:
Brian Mattson
16575 Inguadona Beach Circle SW
Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372
SUBJECT SITE:
Lot 29, Inguadona Beach, Scott County, Minnesota, also known as
16575 Inguadona Beach Circle SW.
REQUEST:
The applicant proposes the construction of a new detached garage
to be located in the rear yard of the subject property. The proposed
construction will result in the following requested variances;
1. A 6.5% VARIANCE TO PERMIT IMPERVIOUS SURFACE
COVERAGE OF 36.5% INSTEAD OF THE PERMITTED
30%;
2. A 3 FOOT DRIVEWAY SIDEYARD SETBACK
VARIANCE TO PERMIT A DRIVEWAY SIDEYARD
SETBACK OF 2 FEET INSTEAD OF THE REQUIRED 5
FEET;
The Planning Commission will review the proposed construction and requested variance
against the following criteria found in the Zoning Ordinance.
1. Literal enforcement of the Ordinance would result in undue hardship with
16200 E~l~7~[~txS~7~,71~e3~}~44~n~TB,~r~P,t~2tl~ / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAl. OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
respect to the property.
2. Such unnecessary hardship results because of circumstances unique to the
property.
3. The hardship is caused by provisions of the Ordinance and is not the result of
actions of persons presently having an interest in the property.
4. The variance observes the spirit and intent of this Ordinance, produces
substantial justice and is not contrary to the public interest.
If you are interested in this issue, you should attend the hearing. Questions related to this
hearing should be directed to the Prior Lake Planning Department by calling 447-4230
between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. Monday through Friday. The Plauning
Commission will accept oral and/or written comments. Oral or written comments should
relate to how the proposed construction and requested variances are or are not consistent
with the above-listed criteria.
Prior Lake Planning Commission
Date Mailed: June 10, 1997
Revision Mailed: June 16, 1997
Notice Mailed for Continued Hearing Date: October 17, 1997.
L:\97FILES\97VAR\97-053\9753VAPN.DOC97-53PN2.DOC
NOTICE OF HEARING FOR THE FOLLOWING VARIANCES;
1. A 24% VARIANCE TO PERMIT IMPERVIOUS SURFACE
COVERAGE OF 54% INSTEAD OF THE PERMITTED 30%;
o
A 4 FOOT DRIVEWAY SIDEYARD SETBACK VARIANCE TO
PERMIT A DRIVEWAY SETBACK OF 1 FOOT INSTEAD OF THE
REQUIRED 5 FEET FROM TIlE SIDE LOT LINE;
ALL RELATED TO THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW DETACHED GARAGE
AND DRIVEWAY ON PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE RI-SUBURBAN
RESIDENTIAL AND SD-SHORELAND DISTRICTS
You are hereby notified that the Prior Lake Planning Commission will hold a hearing at
Prior Lake Fire Station #1, located at 16776 Fish Point Road SE (Southwest of the
intersection of C.R. 21 and Fish Point Road), on: Monday, June 23, 1997, at 6:30 p.m.
or as soon thereafter as possible.
APPLICANT:
Brian Mattson
16575 Inguadona Beach Circle SW
Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372
SUBJECT SITE:
Lot 29, Inguadona Beach, Scott County, Minnesota, also known as
16575 Inguadona Beach Circle SW.
REQUEST:
The applicant proposes the construction of a new detached garage
to be located in the rear yard of the subject property. The proposed
construction will result in the following requested variances;
I. A 24% VARIANCE TO PERMIT IMPERVIOUS SURFACE
COVERAGE OF 54% INSTEAD OF THE PERMITTED
30%;
2. A 4 FOOT DRIVEWAY SIDEYARD SETBACK
VARIANCE TO PERMIT A DRIVEWAY SIDEYARD
SETBACK OF 1 FOOT INSTEAD OF THE REQUIRED 5
FEET;
The Planning Commission will review the proposed construction and requested variance
against the following criteria found in the Zoning Ordinance.
16200 Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 4,~7-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
1. Literal enforcement of the Ordinance would result in undue hardship with
respect to the property.
2. Such unnecessary hardship results because of circumstances unique to the
property.
3. The hardship is caused by provisions of the Ordinance and is not the result of
actions of persons presently having an interest in the property.
4. The variance observes the spirit and intent of this Ordinance, produces
substantial justice and is not contrary to the public interest.
If you are imerested in this issue, you should attend the hearing. Questions related to this
hearing should be directed to the Prior Lake Planning Department by calling 447-4230
between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. Monday through Friday. The Planning
Commission will accept oral and/or written comments. Oral or written comments should
relate to how the proposed construction and requested variances are or are not consistent
with the above-listed criteria.
Prior Lake Planning Commission
Date Mailed: June 10, 1997
Revision Mailed: June 16, 1997.
L:\97FILES\97VAR\97-053\9753VAPN.DOC9753 VAPN.DOC
SUBJECT LOT:
LOT 29, INGUADONA BEACH
~ 33
3~ 35
I0 2
4TH
4
o
/
/
DESCRIPTION:
Lot 29, "INGUADONA BEACH", Scott County, Minnesota. Also showing th~ location of
the existing improvem~- s and proposed addition, this 16th day of Feb. 1996.
NC~ES' Benchmark 936.15 walkout elevation of the existing house.
Net lot area = 5,607 sq. ft. 946.7
Net existing lot coverage = 28.0 % (940.2)
Proposed net lot coverage = 53.8°/o
DENOTES EXISTING GRADE ELEVATION
DENOTES PROPOSED FINISHED GRADE ELEVATION
DENOTES PROPOSED DIRECTION OF SURFACE DRAINAGE
SET GARAGE SLAB AT EL. 940,34
SET TOP OF BLOCK OF GARAGE AT EL. 947.82
CERTIFIED MAIL
RETURN RECEIPT REQLrESTED
Federal Emergency Management Agency
Washington, D.C. 20472
OCT 1 7 1997
The Honorable Lydia Andren
Mayor of the City of Prior Lake
Scott County
16200 Eagle Creek Avenue, SE
Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372
Dear Mayor Andren:
Please consider this an official rem'mder that your community has until November 19, 1997,
to adopt floodplain management measures which satisfy Section 60.3(c) of the National Flood
Insurance Program (NFIP) regulations and have them approved by our Regional Office.
I realize that your community may be in the final adoption process, or you may have recently
adopted the appropriate measures. If you have not done so, please submit these measures to
the Director, Mitigation Division of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA),
175 West Jackson Boulevard, Fourth Floor, Chicago, Illinois 60604, where they will be
reviewed upon receipt. Our regional staff will inform you of your community's continued
eligibility when your measures are approved, or will assist your community in the develop-
ment of appropriate measures. As in previous correspondence, we urge you to contact our
Regional Office if your community is encountering difficulties in enacting the appropriate
measures. Our Regional Office can be reached at (312) 408-5548.
The NFIP regulations (copy enclosed) identify certain floodplain management measures
for adoption by participating communities. These measures need to be adopted by
November 19, 1997, to avoid your community's suspension from the NFIP on that date.
Please note that there are certain consequences when a community is suspended from
participation in the NFIP. FEMA would like to help ensure that your community is not
faced with these consequences, which include the following: flood insurance may not be sold
or renewed within a suspended community; 3-year insurance policies remain in force only
until the end of the current year; and the remaining premium for years 2 and/or 3, which
was prepaid, will be refunded.
It is important to also note that when a community is suspended from the NFIP, it is subject
to the provisions of Section 202(a) of Public Law 93-234, as amended. This section
prohibits Federal officers or agencies from approving any form of loan, grant, guaranty,
insurance, payment, rebate, subsidy, disaster assistance loan or grant (in connection with a
flood), for acquisition or construction purposes within special flood hazard areas. For
example, this would prohibit mortgage loans guaranteed by the Department of Veterans
Affairs, insured by the Federal Housing Administration, or secured by the Rural Economic
and Community Development Services.
2
Further, Section 202(b) of P. L. 93-234, as mended, states that in the event of a disaster mused
by a flood, Federal disaster relief assistance will not be available to any property located within
the suspended community. The law requires federally regulated lendi~ institutions to so notify
the purchaser or lessee of improved real property situated in special flood hazard areas when
such property is being used to secure a loan that is being made, increased, extended or renewed.
A suspended community can regain eligibility in the NFIP by submitting a new application and
enacting the floodplain management measures established in Section 60.3 of the NFIP regulations.
However, please note that during the period of suspension from the NFIP, if the community
permits development to take place in the floodplain that aggravates the flood ba?ard, the
community will be required to remedy the increased hazard to the maximum extent possible
before eligibility can be restored.
We encourage you to contact our Regional Office if you need assistance or have any questions.
Our regional staff will provide technical assistance and guidance in the development of your
community's floodplain management measures. The adoption of compliant floodplain manage-
ment measures will ensure participation in the NFIP and will provide the citizens in your
community protection from disaster.
Sincerely,
Enclosure
Federal Emergency Management Agency
Washington, D.C. 20~t72
Excerpts from the National Flood Insurance Pro_m-am Re_~ulations (44 CFR 59 et seq.)
44 CFR 59.24 - "Suspension of Community Eligibility" (formerly 24 CFR 1909.24)
44 CFR 60.3 - "Flood Plain Management Criteria for Flood-prone Areas~
(formerly 24 CFR 1910.3)
ie
~ce
~ud'
'one
~t~r
~ of
· o/fi-
.d ~'
~.evel-
mud-
)d-re-
cl on
o it~
~nd
(e) Extent of State and local
pro~res~ in flood p].~n~ mudslide (i.e..
mudflow) are~ ~nd flood-related ero-
sion area msa~ement, including
adoption of flood plain management
re~flation~ constst~n~ with related on-
going procr~ kn the area.
iii i~R 46968. Oct. 26. 1976. l~.edesiCnated
44 F~ 311'~?. l~ay 31. 1979]
{ 59.24 Sus~nsion of community eli~bil-
itl
(a) A cOmm~ty eH~ble for the
of flood ~ sh~ be ~bjec~
s~ion from ~e ~0~ for
~g to sub~ copi~ of adequa~ flood
pl~ m~agemen~ re~atio~ meet-
~ the mi~{~ requ~emen~
p~D~ (b). (c). (d) or (e) of ~ 60.3
or p~Dh (b) of { 60.4 or { 60.5.
~thin s~ mon~ from the da~ the
Adwt-~r ~ro~d~ the da~ upon
w~ch ~he flood ~1~ re~tio~ for
the appH~ble p~ph sh~ be
b~ed. ~ere there h~ no~ been ~y
submission by the co~y. the Ad-
mi-{~trator sh~ notHy the
~y that 90 ~ys rema~ ~ the s~
monZh De,od ~ order ~0 sub~t ade-
qua~ flood Pl~ ~-agemen: re~a-
tio~. ~ere there h~ been ~ ~ad-
equa~ sub~t~ion, the A~m{~trator
sh~ hotly the ~m~ty oi the spe-
chic deflcienci~ ~ i~ sub~tted flood
pl~ m~n~eement re~atio~
~0~ ~he co~i~y of the m~o~t
of t~e remmining ~t~ the
month pe~od. H. ~equently. copies
of ~equa~ flood pla~ m~agement
re~atio~ ~e no~ r~eived by ~he Ad-
mi~im~r~r, he sh~l]. ~O later th~ 30
days before the e~tion of the o~-
n~ s~ month pe~. pro,de ~ten
no,ce ~ the co~ty ~d ~ the
s~ ~d ~e publication ~ the
~ R~s~ ~der P~ 64 of
t~ subc~D~r, of the comm~ty's
lo~ 0f eH~b~ty for the s~e of flood
~ce. such s~pe~ion to become
eH~five upon the expiation of the
s~ month pe~o& Shoed the co~u-
~ty remedy the def~Z ~d the Ad-
~tra~r r~eive coDies oI ~equa:e
flood pla~ ~gement re~atio~
~ the gotice De.od. the s~pen-
sion notice sh~ be resc~ded by the
Admi~t~tor. H the
r~eiv~ notice from the S~te that
h~ ended ~equa~ flood pl~ m~-
agement re/-~la:ions for the comn
ty within the notice period, the
per. ion notice sha~ be rended b.
the A~tra~r, The co~.nt~y's
e~b~tty sh~ rema~ te~i~d
~r s~pe~ion ~fl copi~ of ade-
quata flood pla~ m~a~ement reda.
:io~ have been received and approved
by the Admi~rator.
(b) A COmm~y eli~ble lot the s~e
oi flood ~ce which la~ to ade-
quately e~orce flood 91a~ ~a~e-
ment re~a~o~ meet~ the
m-m req~emen~ set io~h ~ ~
60.4 ~d/or 60.5 s~ be ~bJ~
probation. ~obaMon sh~ repr~en~
fo~al not~lcation ~ the
tha~ the Admlni~Or re~ ~he
co~-nlty's flood pl~
the Aa~l~t~ator (1) sh~ ~o~ the
comm.nlty upon 90 days 9~or
notice oI the ~p~d~ probation ~d
of ~he specHic 9ro~ deflcienci~
~d ~olatio~ relative to the lafl~e
before probation ~ to be~, ~ue a
9r~ rele~e to ]oc~ me~a expl~
the re~o~ lot ~d the eHec~ of pro-
ba~ion, and (3) shall,
leas~ 90 days before proba-
tion is to begin, advise all
policyholders in the co~un-
iky of ~he impendin9 pro-
bation ~d the addition~
tha~ ~ be ch~ed, ~ prodded
t~ pa~aph, on policies sold or re-
newed d~ the period cf 9roba~io~
D~ t~ 90-day period the COmmU-
~ty sh~ have the oppo~ty to
avoid probation by demo~
c~m~ce ~th ~o~ req~e-
men~, or by co~ ~o~ deft-
-ciencies-~-d'kemed~ ~
to the m~ extent po~ible. H, at
the end oi the 90-day period, the Ad-
mi~tra~r dete~es that the com.
m~ty h~ failed to do so, the proba-
tion sh~ ~o ~to eliect. ~obation
may be cont~ued lot up to one ye~
~ter the comm~ty co~ec~ ~ ~o-
~zm deficiencies ~d remedi~ ~ ~o-
latio~ W the max~ extent
ble. ~ood L~ce may be sold or re-
newed Ln :he co~:y while it ~ on
probation. ~ere z policy cove~ 9ro~-
e~y loca:ed ~ a co~ty placed on
257
§ 59.24
probation on or after Octo-
ber 1, 1986, but prior to
October 1, 1992, an addi-
tional premium of $25. O0
shall be charged on each
such policy newly issued or
renewed during the one-year
period beginning on the date
~he community is placed on
probation and during any
successive one-year periods
that begin prior to October
1, 1992. Where a community's
probation begins on or after
Ootober 1, 1992, the addi-
tional premium described in
the preceding sentence shall
be $50.00, which shall also
be charged during any suc-
cessive one-year periods
during which the community
remains on probation for any
part thereof. This $50.00
additional premium shall
further be charged during
any successive one-year per-
iods that begin on or after
October 1, 1992, where the
preceding one-year probation
period began prior to Octo-
ber 1, 1992.
(c) A community eligible for the sale
of flood i~u.mnce which fails to ade-
quately enforce its flood pl.t~ m~n-
agement reffillations meeting the mi~-.
mum requirements set forth in § § 60.3/
$0.¢ s.ud/or 60.5 a~d does not correct
its Proem deficiencies ~nd remedy
all violatflous ~o the maxim-m extent
possible in sccor~-~ce with compli-
sace desd!~es established during
period of probation shall be subject to
su~euston of its Program eligibility.
Under such circumstances, the
l~tr~tor shall l~ant the comm,,-tty
days ill which to show cause why it
should not be suspended. The
lsLrater may conduct a hearing. %-tit-
ten or oral, before commencing sus-
peusive action. Il a community i~ to be
suspended, the A~m(-i~trator shall
inform it upon ~0 days prior written
notice ~-nd upon publication in the
FIm~ Rz~z~.~.a under P~.rt 64 of
this subchapter of its los~ of ell~ibility
44 CFi~'Ch. i (IB.-I-gO Eclifion)
for the sale of flood lnsur-~nce. /-n the
event of lmpenctlng su~peusion, the
Ad~h~=rator shall f~ue a pres~ re-
leaae to the local --edta explaining the
re~son~ and effects of the suspension.
The COmmUnity's e~bLLtty sh,~J/ only
be reinstated by [he A~mi~,i.strator
upon his receipt of a local le~-i~lative
or executive measure re~ffirmi~ the
comm.~ity's formal intent to lde-
quately enforce the flood plain m~-
agememt requirements of this subp~r~,
togc*.her with evidence of action taken
by the community to correct Proi'ram
deficiencies s_nd re~nedy to the m~xi-
mum extent possible those violations
which caused the su~peuston. Ln cer-
tain c~es, the A~-m!~t~tr-,ttor, in order
to evaluate the comm~l.'llty'$ perfor~.-
~uce trader the terms of its sub~i~-
sion. may withhold rei,~statemen~ for
a period not to exceed one year from
the date of hl.s receipt of the
~l-y stlbmt~-~lon or place the communi-
ty on probation aa provided for
paragraph (b) of thl~ section.
(d) A co,~munltY eligible for the sale
of flood iz~ur-~nce which repeals its
flood plain me. nagement re~ttlatlons,
allows its re~lattous to lapse, or
amends its re~tlatious so that they no
lonEer meet the ~t-tmum require.
memts set forth in ii $0.-~, 60.4 and/or
60.5 shall be suspended from the Pro-
l-f~m II a community l.s to be suspend-
ed, the A~mi,~istr~tor shall inform it
upon 30 days prior written ~otice a.nd
upon publication in the F~E~.~.
z=,,.a trader Pm-t 64 of thl~ subchapter
of its 1o~ of eligibility for the sale of
flood l~suraz~ce. The community
bility shall re,~-i- terminated after
suspension u~tll copies of adequate
flood plain management re~%tl~tious
have been received and approved by
the Ad'~f'~t~tr~tor.
(e) A commuzdty eligible for the sale
of flood I~su.,~nce may withdraw from
the Pro~a.m by submitttn~ to the Ad-
· ~i~t~trator a copy of a legislative
a~tion that explicitly states lt~ desire
to withd, r~w from the National Flood
Iz~tu-a~ce Pro,ram. Upon receipt of a
certified copy of a filial le~lative
action, the A~mini~trator shall with-
draw the cor~munity from the Pro-
~ a.nd publish in the ~--,cM.
zs~=~ under Part 64 of thi~ subchapter
258
Federal Emergency Management Agency
its 1o~ o! eUg~b2/ty ~or the s~'.e
h~ ~th~ fro~ the ~o~ may
finn ~teria~ ~ecffied ~. ~
if) If d~ a pe~od of k~eii~bfli~F
actio~ to ~e ~lace ~ha~ h~ve
rated exMtkn~ flood pla~, mu~lide
(La., mu~ow) ~d/or riced rei~ted
erosion h:v-~, the
ma~ ~old re~tement ~t2 the
comm~ty sub~ e~dence that
h~ ~en ~ction to remedy to the
~ extent ~ossible the
cr~ed h~. ~e
~ ~o place the re~m~ted
~ on probation ~ 9ro~ded lot
pa~h (b}'of t~ section.
(g) ~e Aam~t~Wr sh~
1y ~otffy the se~c~ com~y ~d
~ ~e~ ~u~ flo~ ~ce
p~ ~ ~ ~ement ~th the
Aa~l~r of thee comm~
whose eU~b~ty h~ Been
or wMch ~ve ~th~ f~om the
pro~m ~ood ~ce ~ ~ot be
~ld or re~ewed ~ those
PoUci~ sold or renewed ~ ~ cam-
m-airy d~g ~ pe~od of ~b~ty
~ d~mod ~ be vo~ble by the
mi~ whether or not ~e p~t~
~ ~e or renew~ h~ ~tu~ noUce of
~e
[~1 ~ ~6968, ~ I6. 19~6. ~~
4~ ~ ~543 ~d 4455~, ~p~ 29, 19~3; 49
~ ~S1, Feb, 8, 198~ ~0 ~ 360~3, 8ep~
19~51
PART 6G.-CRITERIA FOR LAND
MANAGEMENT AND USE.
Subp~d A~l~equiremants for FIo~d Plain
60.1 ~e of ~bp~
~.~ ~ ~mpU~ce ~th fl~ pl~
~ent
60~ ~ p~ m~gement cfi~ ~or
mU~de (Le., mu~ow) ,prone ~e~.
~.~ V~ ~d exceptio~
~.~ ~e~ of ~ for fl~
~ ~f~tio~
Subpaff ~-~-I~quir~m®nts for StMe ~ ~
60.11 ~e of t~ subD~
60.12 ~d pl~ m~lgemenr ~aa for
~ed prope~ies ~ sp~ h~
6Q,13 Honccm~U~ce,
Subpart C,--Additienal C~nsid,raflons in Man*
aging F~o~mne, Mudsl~e (L4~ Mu&
Prone ~t
60.21 ~e ~ ~ sub~
60.22 P~t~ff co~ide~o~ ~o~ fl~*
60.~ F~ ~de~o~ for mu~de
(L~ mu~w~p~ne ~,
6G.24 ~ ~ldem~o~ for
2~ er~ion-9~ne
60.25 D~t~o~ du~e=. ~d ~bU.
[tl~ of S~ Coor~at~g Age~
n~ilon Pi~ ~o. 3 of 197~: E.O. 1212~.
SO~ 41 ~ 46975. Oct. 26. 19T6,
31177, ~y 31, lgT9,
Subpart A~Requirementz for Flood
Plain Management Regulations
§ 60. I Purpose ofsubpart.
Ca) The Act provides that flood in-
sura.nce shaJ. l not be sold or renewed
trader the pro~t~zn within ~ conununi.
: ry. urde~ the commurfity has adopted
adequate flood plain ma-,3ageme~t reg.
Ulztions consL~tent with l~ederal trite.
ria. Responsibility for establL~hing
such criteria Ls delegated to the Ad-
min/str~tor.
lb) This subpar~ set~ forth the ce/te-
rt~.developed in accordance with the
Act by wh/ch the Admtrdstr~tor will
determine the ~dequacy of a commLul/.
ty's flood plmtu management re~u.Ll~-
t/on~. These rei'ul~t/on~ must be legal.
lY-eZtforceable, appUed uniformly
tb-toughout the community to all pti.
rarely and pubL/cly owned land within
flood-prone, mudsHde (i.e., mudflow)
or flood-related erosion ~rea~, and the
communit7 must provide that the re~,.
ulation.~ take precedence over ~ny ler~s
restrictive conflicting local law~, ordi-
nLnces or codes. Except a~ otherwise
provided in § 60.6, the adequacy of
such regz~lations shal~ be determLqed
on the balls of the sta~da~rds set forth
in § 60.3 for flood-prone a. re~% § 60.4
259
for mudsUde areu a~d § 60.5 for flood-
related erosion a.reu.
(c) ~ot~ ~ t~ subp~ sh~ be
~ed ~ ~g or repl~g
the gene~ req~emen[ that aD e~-
hie comm~ties m~ ~ke ~to
co~t flood, mu~Ude (i.e.,
~d flood-re,ted eTosio~ h~, to
the ex~nt that they ~e ~o~ L~
oH~i~ ~tio~ rela~g to ]~d ~-
(d) ~e c~fla sec fo~h ~ [~
p~ ~e mletm~ S[~ JOt the
~s~o~ b~ ~ood-pro~e. muscle
e~io~-prone co~J[tes. ~Y com-
m~t~ m~ excee~ t~e ~,,m c~-
tefia ~der thM p~ by ~dop[~ more
com~rehe~lve flood pl~
merit re~a[to~ utfl~E the
~ such ~ ccn~ed ~ Subp~ C of
t~ p~[. ~ some ~c~, com~-
ty offlci~ m[y h~ve acce~ to ~or-
m~Uon or ~owled~e of
that req~e, p~ic~Jy for h~
s~ety, hi,he= s~d~ th~ the ~-
~ cfite~ set fo~h ~ Subp~ A
of t~ p~ Therefore. ~Y flood
~a~ement re~tio~ adopted bY
S~te or · com~ty w~ ~e more
r~fict~ve th~ the cr~te~[ set fo~h
~ t~ p~ ~e enco~a~ed ~d
~e precedence.
[~1 ~ ~69~5, Och 26. 19~6. ~ed~i~ted
~4 ~ 3[iTT, ~ay 31, [9~9. ~d ~ended st.
48 ~ 44552. ~ep~ 29, 1983:49 ~
~eb. 8. 1984]
~60~ ~finJmum compliance with flood
plain management
(a) A flood.prone c0mm~Y
~ for flo~ ~ce eB~b~ty
meet the s~d~ of ~ 60.3(~)
order ~ become eU~ble ff · ~M
h~ not been ~ed for ~he
~ ~e t~e of app~c~t~o~ There~er.
~he comm~t~ ~ be Wen a period
of s~ mon~ f~om the date the Ad-
m~tor pro,des the da~ se~
~ ~ 60.3 (b). (c). (d). or (e) ~n which to
mee~ the re~emen~ of the
ceP/ed a ~I. b~t h~ not ye~
p~ed for ~0~ ~b~l~Y. ~he
m~ty ~h~ a~piy for e!i~b~Y
rectly ~de: the s:~dar~ se~ forth
~ 60.3~b). There~ef. the co~t~
~ be ~ven a pericd of ~ mon~
from the d~e the A~tmtor pro-
44 CFR Ch. I (10-1-90 Edition)
rides the data se'. fo~h i~ t 60.3
(d), or (e) /n wBich to meet the re-
quLremenCs of the ~pplic~ble
~ph.
(~) A mu~lide (i.e., mu~ow)-prone
C0mm~ity ~ppl~ for flood ~-
~ce e~bflit7 s~.~ meet the st~d-
· r~ of t 60.!ia) ;o become eli~ble.
There~ter, :he c0mm~ty ~H be
Wen a period of sL~ mont~ from the
d~te the mu~de ti.e, mu~ow)
de~ez~d L~ w~ch to mee~ the re-
q~emen~ of t
(c) A flood-reie:ed erosion.prone
co~-~ity acpl~"~ for ~ood ~r-
~ce e~bfltty shah mee~ the
~ of t 50.5(~) to become eH~ble.
~ere~ter. the co~ity ~ be
Wen · period of s~ mont~ from the
date the flood-related erosion
hz~i ~pec!~ erosion h~ ~e de-
~eated ~ which to meec the requ~e-
(d) Comm~ti~ lden:ffied ~ P~
65 of t~ spbchapter ~ con~
more th~ one t~e of h~d (e.~..
~y combustion of speci~ flood.
mu~Hde (Le., mu~ow). ~nd flood-re-
lated erosion h~d ~e~) sh~ adopt
flood pl~ m~nalemen~
for e~h t~e of h~d
~th the req~emenM of t~ 60.3, 60.t
~d 60.5.
(e) ~ flood plzM m~alement
re~o~ may be sub~tted to the
State Coor~[[~ Atency desi~z~ed
p~u~t to t 60.25 for i~ ad,ce ~d
conc~ence. The sub--ion ~ the
Sta~e sh~ cle~ly des~be proposed
e~orcement pr~ed~.
ble for sub~tt~Z ~u~ or bie~
repo~ to the A~=~:or p~uan~
to ~59.22~b)(2) of th~ subchapter
shz~ ~o sub~t copi~ of e~ch ~u~
or bie~ repo~ to ~y State Coor~-
nat~ Aiency.
(g) A cc~ity sh~ll ~s~e that
i~ compreher~ive p!~n 2 co,Stent
~th the flood pl~ m~z~e~e=t ob-
jecti~'es of thh
(h) The come,ky shoe adopt ~d
erfforce flood pl~. m~tement re~-
lz~to~ b~ed on d~:~ ~r~ded by the
A~i-~trz:or. ~Vithcu: ~rlcr approv[1
of the A~M;r=:or. the co~ty
sh~ not adopt ~d e~orce flood
m~emen: re~E~:ior~ b~ed upon
monied dat~ reflec:h~ nzt~ or
260
FedezaJ Emergency /Vtanagement Agency
[41 ~ 469'T5. Oct. 26. 19~6. P. edesignaced ut
44 F~. 3ii~?..x, iay 32. 19';9. a~.~ ~ended
F?. 380.'4, Se~:. 4. 1985]
§ 60.3 Flood plain management criteria
for flood-prone areaz.
The AdmL-~Ls:rator wLLl provide the
data upon which flood plain
men: re~atio~ shall be b~ed. If the
~dmini*~r h~ ~ot prodded z~ll-
dent da~ ~ t~h a b~ ior thee
the comm~ty sh~ ob~fn, renew
~d reuonably ut~e d~ av~able
from other ~ede~. S~te or other
so~c~ pen~ r~ip~ of da~ from
the ~d~i~tg' ~r.'~However, wh~
speci~ flood h~ ~ea d~i~atio~
~d wa~r s~e elevaUo~ have
been f~hed by the
they sh~ apply. ~e s~bo~
such spec~ flood h~d d~i~atio~
~e set fo~h ~ J 64.3 of t~ subcha~
ter. ~ ~ c~ the ~-~ req~e-
men~ gove~g the adequ~y of the
flood pla~ m~enC re~atio~
for flo~-prone ~e~ adop~ by
p~i~ co~m~y depend on the
~o~t of t~ da~ fo~y
prodded W the com~ty by the Ad-
Orer. Mt~im~ s~d~ for
comm~ti~ ~e ~ fo~ows:
(~) ~en the Admi~t~r h~ not
defied the sp~t~ flood h~d ~e~
~th~ & com~ty, h~ not prodded
wa~r s~e elevation da~ ~d hu
not prodded s~flctent d~ ~ identify
the floodway or co~ ~gh
~e~ but the co~m~ty h~. ~di~ted
the pr~ence of ~ch h~ by ~b-
~tt~g ~ appU~Uon Co p~ldpate
~.~e ~o~ ~e co~,~tty sh~:
(i) R~e pe~ for ~ proposed
co~t~c~on or other development
the co~-~ty, ~du~g the pl~e-
ment of m~t~ed homes, so that
it ~y de~ine whether such con-
s~ction or other development ~ pro-
posed ~t~ flood-prone are~;
(2) ~e~ew proposed development to
~e t~ aH n~ pe~ have
been r~e!ved from those gove~en-
~ agenci~ from w~ch zpprov~ ~ re-
qu~ed by Fede~ or State law, ~clud-
~g section 404 of the ~ede~ Water
PoUuUon Control Act ~e~d~en~
19~2, 33 U~.C. 1334;
(3) Review ~ pe~t applt~tio~
de~t~e whether proposed b~g
sit~ w~ be re~o~bly s~e from
flooding:. If a proposed buUd/ng site is
in a flood-prone area, ~U new construc-
tion ~nd substantial fmprovemenLs.
.~haU (D be desii'ced (or modified)
· dequately ~nchored to prevent flora.
tion, collapse, or lateral movement of
the structure resulting from hydrody-
namic end hydrostatic loach, includ/ng
the effect~ of buoyancy, (U) be con-
strutted with materi~l~ resist~nt to
flood d~mage. (iLl) be constructed by
method~ ~nd practice~ that
flood ds.mages, and (iv) be constructed
with electrical, he.ting, ventilation,
plumbiz~, and ~tr condiUoning equip
mer.~ and other service facLUties that
are desiLmed and/or locat~l so M to
preven~ w~ter from entering or accu.
mulattng with/n the compouent.~
during conditions of
(4) l~evtew subdivision propo.~ls ~nd
other proposed new development, ln-
dudin~ manufactured home parks or
subdivisions, to determine whether
such propos~J~s will be reasonably safe
from flooding. H a subdivision propos-
e.l or other proposed new development
is in a flood-prone area, any such pro-
posaJs shall be reviewed to a~sure that
(1) all such proposals are consistent
with the need to ~t~l~e flood
d.m~ge wit.h Jrt the flood-prone ares.
(U) all public utilities and fac/lities,
such as sewer, ~ electrical, and
water systems are located and con-
structed to minimize or
flood dama&e, and iii/) adequate drain-
age Ls provided to reduce expo,~tre to
flood ha~ard~;
(5) L~,equLre within flood-prone areas
new and replacement water supply
systems to be designed to ~l~tee or
ellr~f~ate infiltration of flood waters
into ~he systems; and
(~) l~e:luire within flood.prone
ii) new and replacement sanitary
sewage systems to be designed to mini.
-~tee oz' eliminate infiltration of flood
waters into the systems and dischs~es
from the systems into flood waters
and cU) onsite waste disposal syst~n~
to be located to avoid impairment to
them or cont~i~n from them
during flooding.
(b) W'hen the Administrator has des-
i~nated area-~ of speci~l flood he.zarch
iA zones) by the publication of a com.
munitY's ~'~L/~M or ~'z~M, but has nei-
ther produced water sttrface elevation
data nor identified a floodway or
coastal high hazard area. the cornmu-
rflty
(1) Require permit~ for ~11 proposed
261
44 C.,CR Ch. I (lO-l-90-Ediflon)
construction and other developments
~,~l.~h~? the placement of mz. nuf~c-
~red homes, witl~n Zone A on the
(2) Require the ·pplJcation of the
stand~rds in paz~.~pl~ (~) (2). (3).
(4). (5) and (G) of th.~ section to devel-
opment within Zone A on the
rdt~'s ~-J~u~[ or
(3) Require t~l~ ~ new subdivision
proposals and other proposed develop-
merits (includin~ propo~l~ for manu-
f~c~tred home pa.rks and subdJv~ions)
f~e~ter th~n 50 lots or 5 ~eres, which-
ever ~ ~he lesser, include within such
proposal~ b~se flood elevation
(4) Obtah~ roview and res~on~bly
utilize any ba~e flood elevation and
floodway d~ta av~fl·ble from a Feder-
al, State, or other source, includin~
data.deYeloped pu~ua, nt to
(b)(3) of th~ section, ~ criteria for re.
quh~ that new core,ruction, sub-
stanti~l improvements, or other devel-
opment in Zone A on the co,~muntty's
~'J:~&f or ~'J~..M meet the standard~ in
pl.t~r~phs (oX2), (c)(3), (c)(5), (cX8),
(c)(12), (c)(14), (d)(2) ~nd (dX3) of th~
secrdon;
(5) Where bs~e flood elev~tdon d~ta
· re utilized, within Zone A on the
(i) Obtain the elevation (in rel·t~on
to mean se,~ level) of the lowes~ floor
(inclv~lt,~; b~sement) of ~11 l~ew ~nd
subs~nt~y improved structures. ~nd
(il) Obta~ if the sCruc*.ure h~ been
floodproofed in accordance with p~r~.
fr~l~h (cX3)(fl) of this section, the ele-
vation (in relation to mean se~ level)
to which l;he s;ructure w~s flood.
proofed, and
(~) l~kintain ~ record of all such
formation ~'lth the official desii-n~ted
by the Comm-,~t~y under ~ 59.22
(6) Z',ToCif'~', ~ riveTine s'&Cua, ttoz',.s, ad-
jacent co~'~uniues and the State Co-
ordinatin~ Office prior to an~' ~lter-
· ~ton or relocation of · w~lmrcourse.
and submit copies of such notific~lon~
to the
¢?) Assure that the flood c~[~n~ c~-
p~l~.l~y with~t~ the ~ltered or relocated
portion of any watercourse is ~-~-
t~tned:
(8) Reauh'e that aJJ
homes to be placed within Zone A on
corn~-ultity's .~'~ ~M or ~ sh.qll be
ln~t~led usin~ methocis and practices
which ~,~ flood dam·~e, l~_or ~he
purposes of this requiremen~, manu-
factured homes must be elevated and
anchored to resis~ floca~lon, collapse,
or l_~teral movement..~[e~hod~ of ~n-
chorin~ may include, bu~ ~re no~ ~o be
limited to, use of over-~he-top or frame
fdes to ~round anchors. Th~ require-
ment is in addition to applicable S~a~e
· nd local anchorin~ reqU~ements for
res~ln~ wind forces.
(c) When the A~mt'~tT'ator h~ pro-
vtded · notice of final flood elev~lon~
for one or more special flood
areas on the commur~t~s .~.,u.-.l~ and,
if appropriate, h~q desi~'nated other
special flood hazard ~re~s without
bose flood elevatinn~ on the
~Y's ~.Jd~, but h~ no; Identified ·
reful~tory floodway or co,stol hJfh
hl.F. az~ ~rel. thc COllLt~ll~y S]q~117
(1) Require the standards of pa.r-a.
fr'~ph (b) of tht~ sec~on wtthJn ~ll Ai-
30 zones, ~ zones, A zones, A~ zones,
and AO Zones. on the coPa,~-~ity's
(2) Require that all new cen~truction
and substantial improvements of resi-
dential strucCttres within Zones Ai-30,
A~ and AH zones on the community's
~'J.L~MC have the lowest floor (includL~
basement) elevated to or above the
b~se flood level, unless the commur~i~y
is ~nlmd an exception by the
ist. rator for the allowance of b~se-
ments in accordance with ~ 60.6 (b) or
(c)-'
(~) lqequ~re tl~t ~11 new cor,~Cruction
and sub~nCi~l improvements of non-
resJden~Hl~ st.-,~c~t~es within Zones
Al-30, A~ and AH zones on [he com-
mtmity's firm (i) h~ve the lowest floor
(inclu~l~ basement) e!ev~Ced ~o or
· above tl~e'bs.~e flbod level or, (~) co-
fether wi,.b, aC~end~.~ u~tl~:y and
tary fac,.~icies, be deslfned so
below the b~e fiocd level the scruc-
ture is waterctiht '~,~h w~11. subs~an.
tl~11y lmperme-,ble to c?.e pa.~a~e of
~lter and ~-Jth st~-.tctur~l componenCs
havtnf the c~abi~i~y of resistinf
cL-ostat~c I. nd hydrod~;nar~c los~is and
effects of buoyar, c)~
(4) l~rovide that where · non-resi-
dential strucCure is inCended to be
made watertight below che ba~e flood
level, (l) a re.~stered professional en~-
neet or architect sheJ. l develop and/or
review strccturaJ desirn, specff!c~-
Cions, and plan~ for the coqql;ruction.
~nd shLll certify that the desiin and
method~ of construction ~'e in accord-
262
Federal Emergency Management Agency
trice with accepted st~ndarc~ of p~-
tl~ for mee~g ~e sppU~ble pro~-
sio~ of p~,~ph (c)(3)(U) or
(cX8)(U) of ~ s~lon, ~d (ii) ~
r~rd of ~uch ce~l~ which ~.
cl~des the spec~ic elevation (~ rel~-
Lion ~ me~ se~ level) to w~ch such
s~ct~ ~e fi~proof~ sh~ be
~ed ~th ~he ufflci~
~ by the ~-~f~y ~der
(5) R~e, for ~ new co~t~c~on
~d ~tl~ ~p~vemen~. ~h~
f~7 en~ ~eu below ~he low~
~ ~ ~ other ~ ~ b~ement ~d
w~ch ~e subJ~ ~ fl~ s~i] be
~tc ~ood fo~ on ex~oT w~11~
by ~o~ for the en~ ~d e~ of
fi~w~ Desi~ for mee~ t~
req~ement ~ either be ce~led
by · re--red p~f~ion~ enter
or ~t o~ mee~ or exceed ~e fol-
of two o~ h~n~ ~ ~ net
~e~ of not 1~ th~ one squ~e ~ch
fo~ eve~ equ~e f~t of encl~ed ~es
subJ~ ~ ~oo~ sh~ be pro~de~
~e bottom of ~ open~ s~ ~ no
~gher th~ one f~ ~bove ~e.
Ope~ my ~ ~p~d ~h
~ or de~ces prodded that they
pe~ the ~u~m~lc en~ ~d e~ o~
(6) ~ ths~ m~t~ed
hom~ ~h~t ~e p~ o~
~p~Y~ ~t~ Zon~ A1-30, ~ ~d
(l) Ou~ide of ~ ~ctured home
p~k o~ subdivision,
(l~) In · new m~uf~t~ed home
p~k or subdi~sio~
(iii) In ~ exp~ion to ~ exisUng
m~ufac~ed ~ome p~k or
sion, OT
(fy) In ~ ex~t~g m~u~ac~ed
home p~k or sub~Lon on w~ch ~
m~r~ed home ~u ~c~ed
· ~ood, be elevated on G pe~en~
fo~ion such ~h~L ~e lowes~ ~oo~
of ~he ~~ed ho~e ~ elevated
to o~ ~bove t~e b~e ~ood elev~on
~d be s~el~ ~choged to ~ ~e-
qu~l~ ~ored fo~Uon
to resist floatatlon coUapse a~d lateral
movement.
(?) Require within any AO zone on
the community's ~'I/%M that all new
coratructlon and substaatial Improve-
menC-~ of residential structures have
the lowest floor (including basement)
elevated above the highest adjacent
grade at least u high as the depth
number specified in feet on the com.
munlty's l~'l/tM (at least two feet ff no
depth number is specified);
(8) Require within an$, AO zone on
the commurdty's :~'~M that all new
conatructton and substantial knprove.
menta of nonresidential structures (l)
have the lowest floor (including baae-
merit) elevated above the highest acUa-
cent grade at least a~ high as the
depth v~r~ber specified in feet on the
community's ~'l.~M (at leut two feet
ff no depth v-tuber is specified), or (U)
together with attendant utility and
sanlta~ facilities be completely flood-
proofed to that level to meet the
floodproofing standard specified in
§ 60.3¢cX3)(U);
(9) Require witblu any A99 zones on
a COmmUnity's FIRM the standards of
paragraph3 (aX1) through (a)(4Xl)
and (b)(5) through (b)(9) of this sec-
tion;
(i0) Require until a reg~tlatory
floodway is designated, that no new
construction, substantial improve.
menLs, or other development (includ-
ing fill) shall be permitted within
Zones Ai-30 and AlE on the comm~nl-
ty's J~'~.M. unle.~ it is demonstrated
that the cumulative effect of the pro.
posed development, when combined
with all other existing and anticipated
development, will not h~crease the
w~ter surface elevation of the bue
flood more than one foot at any point
within the cor~mullity.
(11) Require within Zones AH'and
AO, adequate dr~l,~,e paths around
structures on slopes, to ~,utde floodwa-
ters around and away from proposed
structures.
(12) Require that manufactured
homes to be placed or substaatlally
improved on sites in an existing manu-
factured home park or subdivision
within Zones A-l-30. AH, and AE on
the cornr~unlty's :~'lie, M that are not
subject to the provision3 of paragraph
263
(c)(6) of tM section be elev'ated
that either
(1) The lowest floor of the m--ufa(.
tured home is at or above the base
flood elevation, or
(U) The m3nuf~ctured home ch~L~
Ls SUpl~orr, ed by reinforced piers or
other foundation elements of at le~s~
ecluiv~lent stren~h that are no le~
th.an 36 inches in height above
· nd be securely ~nchored to ~n ade-
quately · nchored fotmdation system
to resist float.~flon, colla~e, ~nd later-
al movement.
(13) NoL~tth~,,~as,~e tn7 ot~er pro-
vLstor~ of ! 80.3, a comm,,,~y my
prove certain development lr~ Zones
Al-30, AF~ and AH, on the
ty's ~'I~M which increase the water
surf~ce elevation of the base flood by
more ~ one foot, provlded t~t the
COmm,J~lty fh~ applies for a condl-
Uon~l ~,~ revision, fulfll~ the re-
quiremenLs for such a revision ~s es-
tablished u~der the I~rov~ons of
~ 65.12, ~nd receives the approval of
the
(14) Require that recre~tior~l vehio
(les placed on sit~ w~thin Zones
30, A~. Grid A~ on the com~lhity'$
· '~ either
(i) Be on the site for fewer thGn 180
consecutive days,
(SI) Be fully licensed and re~i.v for
hi~hwl, y use. or
(~) Meet the pernflt requirements of
p~-~grGph (b)(1) of this section and
the elevation and anchorin~ require-
ments for 'mGnuf~ctured homes" in
l~am~r~ph (c)(6) of ti~ section.
A recreational vehicle is re~dy for
highway ~e ff it is on its wheeh or
~ckin~ system. L~ &ttached to the site
only by quick dLsconnect type;
~.nd security devices, and l~s no per-
m~nently tttached ~idition~.
(d) When the Adminis~tor has pro-
vlded ~ notice of final b~se flood elevs-
tion~ within Zones Aio30 and/or AE
on the comm--lty's ~.'J~M and. ff
proprt~te, has designated AO zones,
A~ zones~ A99 zones, and A ~ones on
the community's i~M, and has pro-
vtded data from which the community
sh~ designate .its reL~lator~ flood-
way, the com,nurdty shall:
(1) Meet the requirements of
KrGphs lc) (i) through (14) of thLs aec-
tlon;
,~q ,,..tx r~. j (10..I.90 Edition)
(2) Select and adop~ a re~.~,tory
floodway ba.~ecl on the principle that
the ~ea chosen for the rer~ll, tor~
floodwty mu~t be desired to ctfr7
the wafers of the b~se flood, without
incre~sin~ the w~ter surface elevation
of that flood more than one foot at
any point;
(3) Prohibit encro~hments, includ.
Lng fill, new constr~ction.
lmprovement~, and other development
wi~h~ the adopt~l reGtl~tory flood.
w~y uule~5 it h~s been demo~d
through hydroloLdc and h),dftttlic
analyses performed in ~corcl~ce with
stand~d enBtneerL~ pric~ce that the
proposed encroa~l~,~.~t would not
result In any increase in flood levels
within the co,~m-,~s~y dm-h~ the oc.
cu~en~e.of the base flood dischi~e;
(4)~otwitl~standJn~ ~n~' othe~ provi-
sions of ~0.3, a com~n,lnlty l~y
permit encroaclunenLs within the
· dopted regulatory flood~ that
would result, in an increase in b~e
flood elevatton~ provided t[~.~t the
com~,~ity fL,~ applies for a condi-
tfon~l ~'~M and floodway revision,
fulfills the requirements for such revi.
slons as established under the provi.
sion~ of § 65.12, and re~eives the
proval of the
(e) When the Admh~t~tor h~s pro°
Tided a notice of f~n[T b&se flood elevao
tion~ within Zones AI-~0 and/or AE
on the community's ~'3-~M and, ff
proprtate, hs~ designated AH zones,
AO zones, A99 zones, and A zones on
the commurdty's F~M, and h~.s iden-
tified on the community's I.'LJ~M co.t-
al high hazard areas by deslLmating
Zones VI-30, VE, and/or V, the ccm-
(1) Meet the requirements of par~-
~r~pl~ (c)(1) through (~4) of th~ r~c-
tio~:
(2) W1thl~ Zones ¥1-~0. ~,~. and
the elevation (in relation to mean
level) of the bottom of the lowest
~ta"uctur~l member of the lowest floor
(exclu~Lin~ pfllng~ and column) of
new and -~].lbef;,'~-ati~.Uy ~proved
~ures. and whether or not such ~truc-
~ure~ cont~ a basement, and (ii)
,~-tnt~ a record of ~U such informa.
tion with the offici~ designated by
the com~,,,~}~y under §
264
Federal Emergency Management Agency
§ 6o.3
(3) Provide that all new construction
within Zones VI-30, VE, ~nd V on the
community's 1,'II~M is located land-
ward of the reach of mean high tide;
(4) Provide that all new construction
and subst, antial improvements in
Zones V1-30 and Viil, and also Zone V
il base flood elevation cl~t~ is avail-
able, on the community's ~'ht~M, are
elevated on ptllr~ and col,,m,~s so
that ii) the bottom of the lowest hori.
zontal ' structural member of the
lowest floor (excludin~I the pilings or
col-r~r~s) ES eievated to or above the
base flood level; and (ii) the pile or
col.mr~ foundation ~nd structure
tached thereto .is a~dttered to reskst
flotation, collapse and lateral move.
merit due to the effects of wind and
water loa~s actll~ simnltarieously on
all buildin~ components. Water load-
ink values used shall be tho.~e
ed with the base floo~L Wind loading
values used shall be those required by
applicable State or local building
standsi-ds. A registered professional
enlineer or architect shall develop or
review the structural design, specifica-
tions and plans for the construction,
and s.hall certify that the de~i~n and
methods of construction to be used are
in accordance with accepted standards
of l~ractice for meetin~ the provi~ton-~
of para~Taphs (e)(4)(i) and (il) of this
section.
(5) Provide that all new construction
and substantial improvements within
Zones VI-30, VE. and V on the com-
munity's 1-'1.~I have the sp~ce below
the lowest floor either free of obstruc-
tion or constructed with non-support-
in~I brealr~way walls, open wood
tice.wor~ or insect ~creen!n~ intended
to collapse under wind and water loads
without causing collapse, displace.
ment, or other structural d.~age to
the elevated l)ortion of the building or
supporting foundation system. For the
purposes of thJ~ section, a bresXway
wall shall have a design sale loading
resistance of not les~ tha~n 10 and no
more than 20 pounds Per square foot.
Use of breakway wn11_~ which exceed a
design sale loading resistance of 20
pounds per square foot (either by
design or when so requl~ed by local or
State codes) may be permitted only ff
a registered professional ensineer or
architect ce~ffies that the de$i~n~
proposed meet the following condi-
tion~:
(i) Breakaway wall collapse shall
result from a water load leas than that
which would occur durin~ the b~se
flood; and,
iii) The elevated portion of the
bulldin~ and supporting foundation
system shall not be subject to collapse,
displacement, or other structt/ral
diuna~e due to the effects of wind and
water load~ actin~ simultaneously on
all building components (structural
and non-structural). Water loading
values used shall be those associated
with the base flood. Wind loaclh~
values used shall be those required by
applicable State or local bulldh~
standards.
Such enclosed space shall be u~eable
solely for par~tn~ of vehicles, bulldin~
a~ceas, or storable.
(6) Prohibit the use of f/Il for strut.
rural support of buildings within
Zones VI-30, VE, and V on the com.
(?) Prohibit man-made alteration of
sand dunes and manh, rove stands
within Zones V1-30, VIE, and V on the
comm-~tty's ~'/.fe.M which would in-
crease potential flood damage.
(8) Require that m-r~ufactured
homes placed or substantially
proved within Zones V1-30, V, and VE
on the community's lPI~M on sites
(i) Outside of a manufactured home
park or subdivision,
(il) In a new manufactured home
park or subdivision,
(iff) In an expansion ~o an existing
manufactured home park or subdivi.
s/oil, or
(iv) In an existin~ manufactured
home park or subdivision on which a
manufactured home has incurred
"substa~tial damage" a~ the result of
a flood.
meet the standards of l~ara~aphs
(e)(2) through (?) of this section and
that manufactu~'-ed homos placed or
substantially improved on other sites
in an existin~ manufactured home
park or subdivision within Zones VI-
30, V, sad VE on the comm, unity's
~'t~M meet the requirements of para-
~'aph (c)(12) of thi~ section.
(9) Require that recreational vehi-
cles placed on sites within Zones VI-
265
§ 60.4
30, V, and VE on the community's
FIRM either
ii) Be on the site for fewer than 180
consecutive days,
iii) Be fully licensed ~nd ready for
highway use. or
(iii) Meet the requireraent.s i.-1 para-
graphs (b)(l) and (el (2) through IT) of
this section.
A recreational veh/cle is ready for
highway use il it is on its wheeL~ or
lacking system, is attached to the site
only by quick discorL.-~ect type utilities
and security devices, and has no per-
manently attached additions.
£41 FR 459';'$, Oct. 26, 19751
]/~rrolt~L Ho'r~: Pot F~V~L Rr~sr~t ci-
taUon~ ~/Iectinz I 60.11. see thc LES~ o! Sec-
tion~ Affected in the ~md~g Aic~ section of
this volume.
§$0.4 Flood plsin management criteris
for mudslide (i.e, mucl/Iow)-prone
The A~lministrs. tor will provide the
data upon which flood plain manage-
ment re~tla~iov.s shall be based, If the
Administrator hu not provided sulfl-
cient data to funflah a basis for these
re~tlations in a ps~'~icuiar community,
the community shall obtain, review,
and reuon~bly utilize dat~ available
from other Federal, State or other
sources pending receipt of data from
the A~mtnt~t.l~tol'. However, when
special mudsllde (i.e., mudflow) hazaxd
area designations have been furnished
by the A~mlnt.~l~tor, they shall
apply. The symbols defining such spe-
cial mudaUde (i.e., mudflow) hazard
desivnations are set forth in § 64.3 df
this subchapter. In all cases, the mini-
mum requirements for mudalide (i.e.,
mudflow)-prone areas adopted by a
particular community depend on the
amourit of technical data provided to
the comm-ntty by the A~r~inistrator.
MJ~tmtlm sts.ndards for cornn~Alnlties
are a~ follows:
ia) When the Administrator ha~ not
yet identified any area within the
community as an area having special
mudsllde (i.e.. mudflow) hazard~, but
the community h~ indicated the pres-
ence of such hazard~ by submitting an
application to ps,tic§pate in the Pro-
/Tam, the community shall
(1) Require permits for all proposed
coratruction or other development in
44 CFR Ch. i (10-1-90 Edition)
the community so that it may deter.
mine whether development Es pro-
posed within mucislide (Le., mudl'low)-
prone are~;
(2~ P~equire review of each per'mi~,
application to determine whether the
proposed site and improvements %-ill
be reasonably safe from mud~des
(i.e., mudflowsL Factors to be consid-
ered in m~in~ such a determination
should include but not be limited to (il
the type and quality of soils, iii) any
evidence of sround water or surface
water problems, (ill) the depth and
quality of any fill, (iv) the overall
slope of the site. and (v) the weight
that any I~ope~d structure will
impose on the slope;
(3) Require, ii a proposed site and
improvements are in a location that
may have mucisllde (i.e., mudflow) h~z-
ard,s, that ii) a site investigation and
further review be made by person~
qualified in geolo/7 and soils en/ineer.
lng, (il) the proposed grading, excava-
tions, new construction, and substan-
tial improvements are adequately de-
si~ned and protected against mucisllde
(I.e., mudflow) d~.mages, (iii) the pro-
posed L-fading. excavations, new con-
struction and substantial hnprove-
ments do not agsravate the exis~inS
b-~d by creating either on-site or
off-site disturbances, and (iv) d~t~-
age, planting, wa~ering, and mainte-
nance be such as not to endanger slope
stability.
ih) When the .4~mtrtist~tor has de-
lineated Zone M on the comrnu-rtitY'S
~P*M, the commll."flty shall:
(1) Meet the requirements of para-
~raph (al of t2iks section; and
· (2) Adopt and enlorce a i'rading ordi-
nance or resuiation in accordance ~th
data supplled by the Ackuinistrator
which ii) res~tlates the location of
foundation syster~ and utility sys-
ten~s of new constamction ~.nd substan-
tial improvement.s, (ii) re~tlates the
location, drainage and maintenance of
all excavations, cuts and fllh and
planted slopes, (UII provides special re-
quirements lot protective measures in-
cluding but not necessarily limited to
retaining walh, buttress fills, sub-
drains, diver:er terraces, benchings,
etc.. and (iv) requires engineering
drawings and specilications to be sub-
mitted for all corrective measures, ac-
266
B oRDICg'
PERTIES, INC.
October 10, 1997
Phone: (612) 474-5243 Fax: (612) 474-7543
Mr. Frank Boyles
City Manager
City of Prior Lake
16200 Eagle Creek Ave SE
Prior Lake, MN. 55372
Re: Burdick Building No. 3, 14162 Commeme Ave, James 1st Addition
Dear Mr. Boyles,
We are in receipt of your letter dated October 3, 1997 and Jenni Tovar's letter of September 25,
1997, regarding the above referenced project.
Our attorney, Mr. Mark W. Kelly, of Kelly Law Offices, has responded to your letter of October
3rd. If you have not received his letter, you will receive his letter shortly.
The purpose of my letter is to clarify a couple of items in your letter of October 3rd. First, I
would like to again clarify that Jenni Tovar telephoned me at 4:30 P.M. on Friday afternoon
suggesting that I be present at a meeting Monday morning 9:00 A.M. at the city's offices. At the
time of our telephone discussion, I told Ms. Tovar I would be unable to attend the meeting
Monday moming as I had already scheduled meetings on Monday morning which I needed to
attend.
Ms. Tovar and I continued with a somewhat lengthy telephone conversation Friday afternoon.
You should be informed that she mentioned moving the fence to the top of the berm for our
Building No. 3. Jenni clearly told me that this could not and would not be required by the city or
city officials. However, the neighbors would prefer to have the fence on top of the hill. I told
Jenni we would consider this issue and take it under advisement. However, I further explained to
her that it was unlikely we would move the fence location from the previously approved building
plans
We are concerned with your letter of October 3rd. We (Burdick Properties) most certainly hope
that you and the city staffwill treat Burdick Properties fairly and in the same manner you would
treat any other land owner/developer in the City of Prior Lake. That is, we most certainly hope
that we will not be singled out and treated unfairly in accordance with city rules, regulations, and
ordinances.
At this time, I would like to mention that we have incurred quite a lot of additional expenditure
due to neighbors interrupting our general contractor and subcontractors on the site, city staff
unnecessarily interrupting contractors, and so forth. This is both time consuming and very
costly.
We will be completing this building project in accordance with the plans that were previously
approved by the City of Prior Lake. Any further issues and concerns pertaining to your letter of
October 3rd should be addressed to our company attorney, Mr. Mark Kelly.
I would like to add that we (Burdick Properties) always like to be good neighbors and, in turn,
we expect to be treated as good neighbors too. I believe that we have some very well
maintained, quality office buildings at the Northlake Office Centre and we most certainly
consider them good looking, attractive buildings. If you have been to this site, you will surely
notice that the "backside" (west side) of these buildings are finished off in a very fine manner,
kept very neat, clean and orderly, and so forth.
We will be proceeding to complete the Northlake Office Centre Building No. 3 promptly. We
will also expect that the city will not unreasonably withhold our occupancy permits both
temporary and permanent. We do have tenants moving into the building very soon and any delay
with the occupancy permit would be very costly. As I recall, we received temporary occupancy
permits for Northlake Office Centre Building No. 2 from the city when our tenants were moving
into this new building. We would expect the same for Building No. 3.
If you should have any further questions or concerns, please feel free to contact me.
Cordially yours,
BURDICK PROPERTIES, INC.
BHB/cd
cc: Jenni Tovar, Planner
Bob Hutchins, Building Official
Don Rye, Planning Director
Jay Scherer, Building Official
City of Prior Lake Council Members
City of Prior Lake Planning Commission Members
Jeff Evens, Engineering Department
MEMORANDUM
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
RE:
CC:
October 22, 1997
Planning Commissiong)~
Jenni Tovar, Planner,S'
August 12, 1997 Boat Tour
Don Rye, Planning Director
The purpose of this memo is to bring clarification regarding the boat tour taken in August
and possible Zoning Ordinance violations. As I recall, the purpose of the Boat Tour was
to get a water's edge perspective of recent, existing and proposed construction. The
meeting was informal and no minutes were taken. Setbacks, impervious surface, bluff,
flood, trees, bulk, denisty and zoning ordinances were discussed as they impacted old
and new development on the lake. These items were observed and the resulting
discussion was good.
Incidental to these discussions, I noted possible code violations to look into. With the
information I had, I worked with our Zoning Code EnforcementJlnspector to determine if
there were in fact violations. In regards to the following:
· Gresser property on Shady Beach: Apparent lack of hand rail on stairs. This is a
building code issue and will be addressed through ongoing inspections.
· Semi-truck parked on Oakland Beach Avenue. Our Zoning Enforcement Office
opened a complaint file on this apparent violation. He has visited the location on
several occasions and noted no semi-truck parked in street, thus no violations and
the file has been closed.
In regards to the apparent deck/boathouse inquiries, we have no addresses to
investigate and follow-up. Unfortunately, residents do not have their addresses visible
from the lake nor does the City of Prior Lake have a boat or other means of investigating
zoning complaints on lake properties as viewed from the lake.
As has been mentioned in the past, if the commissioners see violations or want to make
inquiries on properties, you need to call us. In order for us to investigate a complaint, an
address or specific site location is necessary. The Zoning Enforcement Officer can then
go to the site and identify any violations. The city then works with residents to get the
sites to be conforming.
In order to improve communication and understanding between the commissioners and
staff, the commissioners should advise staff on such informal meetings that minutes and
staff reports are expected. This will alleviate any uncertainties and follow-up's can be
more efficient.
L:\97FILES~97P LCOMM~PCCORRS~BOATTOU R.DOC