Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-10-97REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA MONDAY, NOVEMBER 10, 1997 6:30 p.m. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. A. Call Meeting to Order: Roll Call: Approval of Minutes: Public Hearings: Old Business: New Business: Case #97-105 Prior Lake Baptist Church requesting a 37.5 foot variance to permit a steeple height of 72.5 feet instead of the permitted 35 feet for the property located at 5690 Credit River Road. B. Case #97-109 Hillcrest Homes requesting a .28 foot varaince to permit a 49.72 lot width at the front yard setback instead of the required 50 feet to be buildable for a single family dwelling for the property located at 16091 Northwood Road. C. Case #97-110 Hitlcrest Homes appeal of the decision of the Zoning Administrator relating to the definition of a bluff in the Shoreland District. 7. Announcements and Correspondence: 8. Adjournment: 16200 Eag e ~eek Ave. S.E.. Prior Lake. Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 27, 1997 1. Call to Order: The October 27, 1997, Planning Commission meeting was called to order by Chairman Stamson at 6:32 p.m. Those present were Commissioners Cramer, Criego, Kuykendall, Stamson and Vonhof, Director of Planning Don Rye, Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier, Planner Jermi Tovar and Recording Secretary Conn/e Carlson. 2. Roll Call: Cramer Present Kuykendall Present Criego Present Vonhof Present Stamson Present 3. Approval of Minutes: Change statement after Roll Call stating Commissioners Criego and Vonhof arrived at 6:31 p.m. (not 7:31 p.m.) MOTION BY VONHOF, SECOND BY KUYKENDALL TO APPROVE THE OCTOBER 13, 1997, MINUTES AS AMENDED. Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED. 4. Public Hearings: A. Case #97-103 Wendy Whimey requesting a variance to construct a new 528 square foot detached garage with additional driveway in the rear yard of property located at 14407 Watersedge Trail. Planner Jenni Tovar presented the staffreport dated October 27, 1997. 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 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%. The proposed additional driveway will be located 5 feet from the property line. Therefore, the applicant L:\97FILES\97PLCOMM~CM~102797.DOC 1 is requesting a 5.5% variance to impervious surface coverage maximum to permit coverage of 35.5%, rather than the maximum allowed of 30%. Staff Recommendation: Reductions to impervious surface can be made by removing part of the drive and reducing the size of the garage. If the Planning Commission feels a 2 car garage is reasonable, then staff recommends 33% impervious surface with recommended reductions. If the Planning Commission feels a 1 car garage is reasonable, staff recommends denying the variance request. Comments from the public: Wendy Whitney, 14407 Watersedge Trial, said they considered all options for the neighbors without removing trees. She feels it is necessary to have a two car garage. She could live with the 20 x 22 foot garage but would prefer larger. Ms. Whitney said she maintains a 14 foot strip of City property behind her yard and wondered if that would help with drainage. Commissioner Stamson closed the hearing. Comments from the Commissioners: Vonhof: Staffworked on reducing the impervious surface. · Familiar with lot 35, he owns lot 34. · All the significant trees are being maintained with the garage proposal. · Good there are no side yard variances. · Questioned the garage elevation at 910 and the fill. · Whitney responded it would involve fill and explained the proposal and landscaping. · Questioned staff on filtering the runoff and swale. Tovar said staff was working with the applicant and the DNR. · Recommend the garage have gutters on both sides with runoffto the back. · Favors staff's recommendations - the variance criteria have been met. · Pointed out the City's green space in the back yard where in the past, Commissioners have only acted on applicant's property. · Felt the need for a two car garage. And that should be the standard. Kuykendall: · Agreed with staff's suggestion of cutting down the size of the driveway. · Questioned the extra 48 sq. feet and impervious surface. Tovar explained the reductions. · The DNR requests 25%. · Will hold to a one car garage. The impervious surface issue is very important. A one car garage is reasonable. Criego: L:\97FILES\97PLCOMM~CMIN'uMN102797.DOC 2 · Agreed with staff's report. · It is mandatory to have a two car garage in Minnesota. · The lot is substandard and the applicant has tried every way to comply. · The DNR basically agreed with the runoff. · There is a hardship. Cramer: · Agreed with staff's recommendation. · A two car garage is appropriate for Minnesota. · The applicant has done a great deal of work to come as close to the impervious surface requirement as possible. · Supports the proposal. Stamson: · Very hesitant to grant a variance over the 30%. · In the past, Commissioners have generally concluded a garage is necessary. · Staff's recommendations are down to a 2.7% variance. · All setbacks from adjacent properties are met. · The drainage on neighboring properties is almost non-existent. The runoff is taken care of. · This is a very unique circumstance. · Supports staff's proposal. Open discussion: Kuykendall: · Will support the variance given the uniqueness of the property. · Applicant Whitney explained how she measured and maintains the green space (14 x 61 feet). · Changed his position given the rationale applicant maintains the adjoining property to support the request. MOTION BY CRIEGO, SECOND BY VONHOF, TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 97- 17PC GRANTING A 3% VARIANCE TO PERMIT IMPERVIOUS SURFACE OF 33% RATHER THAN THE MAXIMUM ALLOWED OF 30% FOR A PROPOSED GARAGE AND EXPANDED DRIVEWAY ON THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 14407 WATERSEDGE TRAIL WITH THE ADDED CONDITION GUTTERS BE ADDED TO EACH SIDE OF THE GARAGE. Vote taken signified ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED. 5. 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 lnguadona Beach Circle. L:\97FILES\97PLCOMM~CMIN'uMN102797.DOC 3 Planner Jenni Tovar presented the staff report dated October 27, 1997. This request was brought before the commission in June and continued at the request of the applicant for plan revisions to reduce the overall variance requests. Mr. 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 fi.om the fi.ont property line, 9.8 feet from the side property line to the north, approximately 10 feet fi.om 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. 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%. The proposed driveway will be located 2 feet fi.om the property line. The City Code requires a minimum driveway setback of 5 feet from the side yard property line. 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. The DNR is not opposed to the location of the driveway 2 feet offthe property line along with staff's conditions as stated in their report. Tovar said staff would work with applicant in diverting the water. StaffRecommendation: If the Planning Commission feels a 2 car garage is reasonable, then staff recommends approval of the variances proposed. If the Planning Commission feels a 1 car garage is reasonable, staff recommends denying the variance request. Mr. Matson's neighbors, Kenneth and Evelyn Falkum submitted a letter objecting to the requested variances. Comments from the Public: Brian Mattson, 16575 Inguadona Beach Circle, responded to questions regarding gutters. There is on one side of the house where the driveway would be located. Mr. Mattson said he has been sensitive to the impervious surface and his neighborhood area. All the other new construction above him has forced the water down the road and changed the neighborhood. It has become a real consideration for his garage by his neighbors across the street. One of the contingencies is a 3 foot easement for snow storage and drainage. Tovar explained the driveway setback allowing for adequate snow storage. Mattson explain his plan for snow removal. L:\97FILES\97PLCOMM~PCM~102797.DOC 4 Dennis Falkum, 10500 Olympic Circle, Eden Prairie, is the son of the neighboring property across the road, voiced his parents concerns for the nmoff. Comments from Commissioners: Kuykendall: Questioned width and easement. Tovar explained the possible snow storage easement between the neighbors. · With the water problems in the neighborhood he cannot agree with the higher impervious surface. There were no alternative proposals from the applicant to solve the runoff problem. · Even with a one car garage the impervious surface would be 32% percent. · Mr. Mattson responded he is at 28% right now. He has four drivers and a boat and is trying to deal with storing his property. · Suggested removing the concrete patio under the deck. · Would like to see other designs. · Given the impact on the community suggested tabling to a future meeting. Criego: · Very small lot - 5,600 sq. feet. The DNR has proposed alternatives. · A neighbor does not want to provide a snow area. · If it was just 36% he could agree, but does not support using the neighbor's property for snow storage. Cramer: · Agreed with Criego. Has difficulty with the two foot setback. · The neighborhood drainage is a problem. · The DNa wants to slow down the drainage. · There is no "on street" parking. · Cannot agree to grant the variance. Vonhof: · The neighborhood has tight lots. · The house across the street is below grade. · Suggested to Mr. Mattson - remove the driveway to the south side of the property which would reduce the setback and impervious surface. · There is a reasonable alternative. Hardship criteria is not met. · There will be a grading issue either way. · Need for a two car garage. Stamson: · Agreed with Commissioners on the parking issue. · The DNR is asking 25% impervious surface. In this neighborhood there are no curbs or gutters. · What is proposed will only add to the existing problems. L:\97FILES\97PLCOMM~CM~ 102797.DOC 5 · The neighbors can build 5 feet fi.om the property. A total of 7 feet between the two properties will be a problem. · This proposal has a significant negative impact on the neighborhood. Mr. Mattson believes the primary cause of the water problems are fi.om the newly constructed homes. Their construction has turned the roads into a river. His driveway construction is minimal. He understands the problem. Kuykendall: · Suggested purchasing the adjacent lot. MOTION BY VONHOF, SECOND BY CRIEGO, TO DENY THE REQUESTED VARIANCE BASED ON THE LACK OF HARDSHIP DEMONSTRATED FROM THE ZONING CODE CRITERIA. Vote taken signified ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED. 6. New Business: Discussion with Prior Lake Spring Lake (PLSL) Watershed District Representative - Craig Gontarek Mr. Gontarek began his presentation by pointing out the Watershed District has a very marginal role in the FEMA ordinance. The only role the Watershed District maintains is management of the outlet, which policies are dictated by the DNR. He explained the outlet and the future with the 509 Plan (a 10 year outlook). The original outlet was designed for flood relief, rather than flood control. They have a joint powers agreement with the City of Shakopee and the Lower Minnesota River Watershed District. If the PLSL Watershed District wants to open the outlet, they have to notify Shakopee and the Minnesota River District. If they are having problems they have the ability to shut the outlet off. The Watershed is concerned with the increasing impervious surface in the system. They would like to incorporate ponding upstream. Unfortunately the topography is not good. The Watershed is also looking at modifications to the outlet and the affects on the surrounding properties and Minnesota River. Construction costs are tens of millions of dollars. Most of the problems are in the upper watershed. Mr. Gontarek mentioned the PLSL Watershed is on the leading edge on how to address some of the problems. The Watershed does not enforce zoning ordinances. Their primary focus has been water quality. Funds and grants were discussed as well. The Commissioners discussed Scott County and the Metropolitan Council's involvement in the area. The Watershed meets with the Cities, Townships and Met Council. How land is developed has a major impact on the watershed. Planned developments such as cluster housing and leaving open areas are needed and should be understood and incorporated by developers. The Watershed did not have the power to make land use decisions in the L:\97FILES\97PLCOMMkPCMINkMN 102797.DOC 6 past. More information should be distributed to all local agencies. Concem for impervious surface standards at 30%. B. Flood Plain Presentation - Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier Kansier gave an overview of the flood plain. Topics included: 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) Direct and indirect flood losses. · Direct losses to homeowners, business, agriculture damage, etc. · Damage to community infi'astructures - streets, bridges and utilities. · Clean up costs. Flood Plain Management history · DNR involvement · FEMA involvement Flood definitions Flood insurance Flood proofing The Commissioners requested staff to come back in a few months with an estimate of homes in the flood plain. Comments were taken fi.om the public: Rick Johnson, 5283 Frost Point Circle, expressed frustration of not understanding the new ordinance. He feels not enough people know what is going on. Mr. Johnson also believes a number of homes will decreased in value with the new ordinance. John Titus, 5331 Frost Point Circle, pointed out some of his neighbor's misunderstandings of the issues. Mr. Titus said some people have the opinion the Watershed is being influenced by special interest groups not wanting the outlet open. He would like the lake kept at a lower level and incorporate a spillway. Mr. Titus suggested employing the DNR to alleviate the 904 high water level and assess future developers for watershed outlet funds. Tom Foster, 5795 Shannon Trail, stated he was the previous owner of Rick Johnson's home. He commented the PLSL Watershed has done an incredible job with the limited funds and resources. He feels there should be extensive management up stream. 7. Announcements and Correspondence: A. Update on Downtown Steering Committee meeting. Rye gave a brief overview of the first meeting. L:\97FILES\97PLCOMM~CM1NLMN 102797.DOC 7 B. Letter t~om Burdick Properties. Rye gave an update of the neighborhood issues and briefly discussed the City's mediation services. Commissioner Kuykendall stated tonight's presentation with graphs was very helpful. 8. Adjournment: MOTION BY KUYKENDALL, SECOND BY CRIEGO, TO ADJOURN THE MEETING. The meeting adjourned at 9:29 p.m. Donald Rye Director of Plarming Connie Carlson Recording Secretary L:\97FILES\97PLCOMIvlSPCM~102797.DOC 8 PLANNING REPORT AGENDA ITEM: SUBJECT: SITE: PRESENTER: REVIEWED BY: PUBLIC HEARING: DATE: 6A CONSIDER A HEIGHT VARIANCE FOR PRIOR LAKE BAPTIST CHURCH, Case File i~97-105 5690 CREDIT RIVER ROAD JENNI TOVAR, PLANNER JANE KANSIER, PLANNING COORDINATOR YES X NO NOVEMBER 10, 1997 INTRODUCTION: The Planning Department received a variance application from Dennis Batty and Associates, on behalf of Prior Lake Baptist Church, who is proposing to renovate the existing facility and construct a 6,442 square foot addition for use as a sanctuary and multi-purpose room and a 1,792 square foot addition for classrooms, and the addition of a new front entry. The proposed spire is 72.5 feet high (Exhibit A). Section 5-4-3 of the City Code allows for a maximum height of 35 feet with the exception that the Board of Adjustment may grant a variance to height regulations if the structure is a church spire (Exhibit C). In this case, the Planning Commission is the Board of Adjustment. DISCUSSION Generally, the Planning Commission reviews variance requests as they meet four specific hardship criteria. However, in this case, Section 5-4-3 of City Code specifically states that the Board of Adjustment may grant a vadance to height regulation if the proposed building setbacks are increased one foot for every additional foot of height or if the proposed structure is among other things a church spire. There are no specific hardship criteria to review. Therefore, the Planning Commission can review the variance request to some other unspecified hardship criteria or can approve the variance because it is a church spire and the City outright allows for variances for church spires. 16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph, (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER RECOMMENDATION: Staff has concluded the height variance request is substantiated because it is permitted upon approval by the Board of Adjustment with or without justification of hardship findings. 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, ACTION REQUIRED: Adoption of the attached Resolution #97-19PC. L:\97FILES\g7VAR\97-105\97~105PC.DOC Page 2 I'N.N ESO RESOLUTION 97-19PC A RESOLUTION GRANTING A 37.5 FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT A STEEPLE HEIGHT OF 72.5 FEET INSTEAD OF THE MAX/MUM HEIGHT ALLOWED OF 35 FEET FOR PRIOR LAKE BAPTIST CHURCH BE IT RESOLVED BY the Board of Adjustment of the City of Prior Lake, Minnesota; FINDINGS 1. Dermis Batty and Associates, on behalf of Prior Lake Baptist Church, has applied for variances fi.om the Zoning Ordinance in order to permit the renovation and building additions including a 72.5 foot spire on property located in the C-1 (Conservation) District and the SD (Shoreland Overlay) District at the following location, to wit; 5690 Credit River Road, legally described in Exhibit B. 2. The Board of Adjustment has reviewed the application for variance as contained in Case #97-105 and held heatings thereon on November 10, 1997. The Board of Adjustment has considered the effect of the proposed variances 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. Because of conditions on the subject property and on the surrounding property, it is possible to use the subject property in such a way that the proposed variance will not result in the impairment of an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent properties, unreasonably increase congestion in the public streets, increase the danger of fire, and danger to the public safety, unreasonably diminish or impair health, safety, comfort, morals or in any other respect be contrary to the Zoning Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan. 5. City Code Section 5-4-3 allows the Board of Adjustment to grant height variances for among other structures, church spires and belfries. 6. The granting of the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. 16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER The contents of Planning Case 97-105 are hereby entered into and made a part of the public record and the record of decision for this case. Pursuant to Section 5-6-8 of the Ordinance Code these variances will be deemed to be abandoned, and thus will be null and void one (1) year from the date of approval if the holder of the variances has failed to obtain any necessary, required or appropriate permits for the completion of contemplated improvements including the future structure, yet to be designed. CONCLUSION Based upon the Findings set forth above, the Board Of Adjustment hereby grants and approves the following variance per Exhibit A for future development on the lot meeting required setbacks; 1. A 37.5 foot variance permitting a 72.5 foot height of a church spire instead of the maximum height allowed of 35 feet. Adopted by the Board of Adjustment on November 10, 1997. ATTEST: Anthony Stamson, Chair Donald R. Rye, Planning Director l:\97var\97-105va\97-19PC.doc 2 EXHIBIT A ARCHITECTS & ENGINEERS - SITE PLAN PRIOR LAKE BAPTIST CHURCH DENNIS BATTY & ASSOCIATES °ARCHITECTS&ENGINEERS, NEW ABSTRACTS EXHIBIT B REG'STE"E .RO.ER A.STRAOTS CONTINUATIONS TITLE INSURANCE CLOSING SERVICE RECORDING SERVICE SCOTT COUNTY ABSTRACT AND TITLE, INC. 223 HOLMES STREET, P.O. BOX 300 SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA 55379 David Moonen and Dale Kutter Telephone: (612) 445-6246 ' FAX: (612) 445~0229 October 6, 1997 Prior Lake Baptist Church 5690 Credit River Road SE Prior Lake, Mn 55372 To Whom it may concern: According to the 1997 tax records in the Scott County Treasurer's Office, the following persons listed on Exhibit "A" are the owners of the property which lies within 100 feet of the following described property: That part of the East 3/4 of the SE~ of Section 1, Twp. 114, Rng. 22, Scott County, Minnesota described as follows: Commencing at the Southeast corner of said Section 1; thence on an assumed bearing of N 01° 21' 00" W, along the line between the Southeast corner and the Northeast corner of said Section I, a distance of 1251.72 feet; thence at right angles S 88° 39' W, a distance of 1875.73 feet; thence S 86° 11' 30" W a distance of 84.66 feet to the East line of the West 30.0 feet of the East 3/4 of the SE~ of said Section 1, said point being the actual point of beginning of the property to be described; thence N 86° 11' 30" E, a distance of 514.66 feet; thence bearing South a distance of 704.31 feet to the center line of County State Aid Highway #12; thence N 63° 37' 56" W along the center line of said Highway #12 a distance of 566.47 feet to the East line of the West 30.0 feet of the East 3/4 of the Southeast ~ of said Section 1; thence N 0° 49' 11" W along said East line of the West 30.0 feet of the East 3/4 of the SE~ of said Section 1, a distance of 418.59 feet to the point of beginning. Excepting therefrom; That part of the East 3/4 of the Southeast Quarter of Section 1, Township 114, Range 22, Scott County, Minnesota described as follows: Continued on next page. Page 1 of 2 MEMBER MINNESOTA LAND TITLE ASSOCIATION AGENT FOR CHICAGO TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY Continued from previous page. Commencing at the southeast corner of said Section 1; thence on an assumed bearing of North 01 degrees 21 minutes 00 seconds West along the line between the southeast corner and the northeast corner of said Section 1, a distance of 1251.72 feet; thence at right angles South 88 degrees 39 minutes 00 seconds west a distance of 1875.73 feet; thence South 86 degrees 11 minutes 30 seconds West a distance of 84.66 feet to the east line of the West 30.00 feet of the East 3/4 of the Southeast Quarter of said Section 1; thence southerly along said east line of the West 30.00 feet a distance of 129.02 feet to the point of beginning of the land to be described; thence deflecting to the left at an angle of 59 degrees 06 mintues 21 seconds a distance of 284.29 feet; thence deflecting to the right at an angle of 82 degrees 48 minutes 54 seconds a distance of 238.79 feet to the centerline of County Road No. 12; thence northwesterly along said centerline a distance of 166.39 feet to the intersection with said east line of the West 30.00 feet; thence northerly along said east line a distance of 288.44 feet to the point of beginning. David E. Moonen President Page 2 of 2 EXHIBIT C (c) one or more jurisdictions, is eligible through joint resolution of the affected local governments. Duration: An agricultural preserve continues indefinitely until either the owner or the City initiates expiration, after which the c~uration is eight (8) years. A land owner may initiate expiration by notifying the City on a form provided. The City may initiate expiration by changing the planning and zoning so that the land is no longer planned for long-term agricultural use or is rezoned to another use. (Ord. 84-02, Cldstar. Where there are two (2) or more contiguous quarter/quarter sections under single ownership, the owner may, by conditional use permit, cluster the permitted number of dwelling units in one quarter/quarter section. All lots created under this provision must meet all of the other district requirements, including those for setbacks, driveway spacing and lot area. One of the conditions of approval shall be the filing and recording of an agreement signed by all of the affected property owners, relinquishing any dght to a residential building site on the quarter/quarter section from which the building site eligibility has been transferred. (Ord. 90-05, 5-21-90) 5-4-3: ]~EIGHT REGU1_,AT[ONS: No structure shall exceed thirty five feet (35') in height above average ground level unless approved by the Board of Adjustment. The Board may authorize a variance to the height regulations in any district if: (A) All front, side and rear yard depths of buildings are increased one foot (1') for each additional foot of height; or The structure is any of the following: television and radio towers, church spires, belfries, monuments, tanks, water and fire towers, grain elevators, stage towers and scenery lofts, cooling towers, ornamental towers and spires, chimneys, elevator bulkheads, 5-4-3 5-4-4 smokestacks, conveyors, flag poles, silos and air conditioning, heating units and wind generators. (Ord. 83-6, 6-24-1983) 5-4-4: (A) (C) (D) (E) (F) TOWERS WITH ANTENNA: The erection of a tower with antenna requires a building permit. The antenna on an existing tower may be changed or altered without a permit. The City shall be exempt from this Section. The maximum height of a tower with antenna shall be seventy five feet (75'). However, a tower with antenna cannot be in excess of a height equal to the distance from the base of the tower to the nearest overhead electrical power line which serves more than one dwelling or place of business, less five feet (5'). In the case of an extendable tower, the retracted height of the tower shall be considered its height for purposes of this Section. The minimum setback from any property line and the 904 contour line shall be equal to one-half (~/2) the height of the tower with antenna measured from the base to its highest point. No parts or anchors which are part of the tower with antenna shall extend across any property iine, public street, or sidewalk. The tower with antenna must be properly grounded with at least an .I Property Identification No c~ %- ~01 -- C)c~ ~J - 6 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: Brief description of proposed project (attach additional [] Rezoning, from (nresent zoning) to (nronosed zoning) [] Amendment to City Code, Comp. Plan or City Ordinance [] Subdivision of Land [] Administrative Subdivision [] Conditional Use Permit ~Varinnce Applicable Ordinance Section(s): [] Other: Property Owner(s) [If different from Applicantsl: ~1~9~ ~ ~"~-~-'~.~L Address: Home Phone: , Work Phone: ~7' ~8~ Type of Ownership: Fee ~ Con~act for Deed ~ P~ch~e Agreement Legal Description of Property (Attach a copy if there is not enough space on this sheet): To the best ~ my knowledge the information provided in this application and other material submitted is correct. In addition, I I~a]ve read the relevant sections of the Prior Lake Ordinance and procedural guidelines, and understand that application~ ~o~pff2o/~e~l un il d~med complete by the Planning director or assignee. Appli(~ u~ ~ - ~ ~ Date Fe~O~er s * ,mre ~ ~ Date THIS SPACE TO BE ~LLED IN BY THE PL~N~G DI~CTOR OR DESIGNEE PLA~G CO~ISSION APPROVED DENIED DA~ OF ~A~G CI~ CO~CIL APPROVED DENIED DA~ OF ~A~G CO~I~ONS: Signature of Planning Director or Designee Date lu-app2.doc NOTICE OF HEARING FOR THE FOLLOWING VARIANCES; 1. A 37.5 FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT STEEPLE HEIGHT OF 72.5 FEET INSTEAD OF THE PERMITTED 35 FEET. RELATED TO THE RENOVATION AND ADDITIONS TO THE BUILDING AND SITE OF PRIOR LAKE BAPTIST CHURCH ON PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE C-1 CONSERVATION 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, November 10, 1997, at 6:30 p.m. or as soon thereafter as possible. APPLICANT: Dennis Batty & Associates Attn: Scott Crosby 6860 Shingle Creek Pkwy Minneapolis, MN 55430 PROPERTY OWNERS: Prior Lake Baptist Church 5690 Credit River Road Prior Lake, MN 55372 SUBJECT SITE: See attached Legal Description. Property is the Prior Lake Baptist Church property, commonly known as 5690 Credit River Road S.E. REQUEST: The applicant proposes to renovate the existing facility and construct 6442 square feet additional sanctuary/multi-purpose room, 1792 square foot classroom addition and a new entry. The proposed construction will result in the following requested variances: 1. A 37.5 FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT STEEPLE HEIGHT OF 72.5 FEET INSTEAD OF THE PERMITTED 30 FEET. Section 5-4-3 Height Regulations state that the Board of Adjustment may authorize a variance to the height regulations if the structure is a church spire. The Planning Commission is the Board of Adjustment in this case and may review the proposed construction and requested variance against the following criteria found in the Zoning Ordinance. 16200 Ela~ik7glrt~lg~.~R~7-gfl~9lLalOfilt~ililO~ota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612)447-4230 / Fax(612)447-4245 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 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 29, 1997 L:\97FILES\97VAR\97-105\97-105PN.DOC 2 PLANNING REPORT AGENDA ITEM: SUBJECT: SITE: PRESENTER: REVIEWED BY: PUBLIC HEARING: DATE: 6B CONSIDER A LOT WIDTH VARIANCE FOR HILLCREST HOMES, Case File ~97-109 '1609'1 NORTHWOOD ROAD JENNI TOVAR, PLANNER JANE KANSlER, PLANNING COORDINATORr~.~ YES X NO NOVEMBER 10, 1997 INTRODUCTION: The Planning Department received a variance application from Hillcrest Homes who is proposing to remove an existing structure and construct a new single family residence. The lot is 49.72 feet wide at the 25 foot minimum required front yard setback. Section 5-8-12 of the City Code requires that substandard lots have a minimum lot width of 50 feet to be buildable. Because the City Code does not specify what measurement distances are in, the setbacks and other numerical ordinance requirements cannot be rounded. Thus, the existing lot width at the front yard setback is less than 50 feet requiring a variance. No specific house plans have been drawn up at this time. However, all setbacks will be met as well as imperious surface coverage. The lot is located in the Northwood subdivision on Prior Lake. DISCUSSION: Lot 92, Northwood was platted in 1911. The property is located within the R-1 (Suburban Residential) and the SD ($horeland Overlay) district. There is a bluff on the property. The applicant does not own either of the adjacent parcels. Lot attributes are as follows: Area (above 904 el) Lot Width (measured at setback) OHW Width Size Requirement to Variance be Buildable Requested (as a substandard lot) 23,035 sq. feet 7,500 sq. feet N/A 49.72 feet 50.00 feet .28 feet 51.82 feet N/A N/A (approx.) 16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447~4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER The legal building envelope is approximately 35 feet wide and 295.15 feet deep, resulting in an area footprint of approximately 10,330 sq. feet. The applicant does not have a house designed yet, but intends to comply with all building setbacks and impervious surface, The DNR has verbally stated they do not object to the proposed variance. 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. The variance request to lot width is an existing condition. There is a hardship with respect to the property because those dimensions cannot be changed to meet the criteria of the ordinance. 2. Such unnecessary hardship results because of circumstances unique to the property. The unique cimumstances is the lot width. Considering that those are existing conditions created in 1911 and they cannot be altered to meet the ordinance requirements, hardships does exist for lot width. The property was originally platted as 49 feet plus or minus. 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. While the lot area is 23,035 sq. feet, the lot width is only 49.72 at the required front setback. These are conditions which have been existing since the property was platted in 1911. The lot width is a hardship that is not the result of the applicant's actions. The variance observes the spirit and intent of this Ordinance, produces substantial justice and is not contrary to the public interest. The intent of a minimum lot width of 50 feet to be buildable is to allow for a structure that can meet the required setbacks and still be of a reasonable size. Considering that adjacent lots are of similar size and have existing structures upon them, the granting of the variance will not be contrary to the public interest. L:\97 FILES\g7VAR\97-109\97- ~ 09PC.DOC Page 2 RECOMMENDATION: Staff has concluded the variance request for lot width is substantiated with hardships pertaining to the lot that the applicant has no control over.. 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. ACTION REQUIRED: Adoption of the attached Resolution #97~18PC. L:\97FILES\97VAR\97-109\97-109PC.DOC Page 3 EXHIBIT A Fll. £ P, OP ~ EXHIBIT B FILE ~0P¥ LEGAL BUILDING ENVELOPE RESOLUTION 97-18PC A RESOLUTION GRANTING A .28 FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT A 49.72 LOT WIDTH AT THE FRONT YARD SETBACK INSTEAD OF THE REQUIRED 25 FEET TO BUILD ON A SUBSTANDARD LOT BE IT RESOLVED BY the Board of Adjustment of the City of Prior Lake, Minnesota; FINDINGS Hillcrest Homes has applied for variances from the Zoning Ordinance in order to permit the construction of a single family dwelling with attached garage on property located in the R-1 (Suburban Residential) District and the SD (Shoreland Overlay) District at the following location, to wit; 16091 Northwood Road, legally described as Lot 92, Northwood. 2. The Board of Adjustment has reviewed the application for variance as contained in Case #97-109 and held hearings thereon on November 10, 1997. The Board of Adjustment has considered the effect of the proposed variances 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 variances on the Comprehensive Plan. Because of conditions on the subject property and on the surrounding property, it is possible to use the subject property in such a way that the proposed variance will not result in the impairment of an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent properties, unreasonably increase congestion in the public streets, increase the danger of fire, and danger to the public safety, unreasonably diminish or impair health, safety, comfort, morals or in any other respect be contrary to the Zoning Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan. The special conditions applying to the subject property are unique to such property, and do not generally apply to other land in the district in which such land is located. The unique circumstances applicable to this property include the substandard lot size, the fact that the property was platted prior to the incorporation of the city. 6. The granting of the variances are necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. The variances 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, but are necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship. The factors listed above do not allow for an alternative location of the proposed structure without variances. 7. The contents of Planning Case 97-109 are hereby entered into and made a part of the public record and the record of decision for this case. Pursuant to Section 5-6-8 of the Ordinance Code these variances will be deemed to be abandoned, and thus will be null and void one (1) year from the date of approval if the holder of the variances has failed to obtain any necessary, required or appropriate permits for the completion of contemplated improvements including the future structure, yet to be designed. CONCLUSION Based upon the Findings set forth above, the Board of Adjustment hereby grants and approves the following variances for future development on the lot meeting required setbacks; 1. A .28 foot variance permitting a 49.72 foot lot width at the required front yard setback instead of the required 25 foot lot width. Adopted by the Board of Adjustment on November 10, 1997. ATTEST: Anthony Stamson, Chair Donald R. Rye, Planning Director l:\97var\97-109va\97-18PC.doc 2 lC Planning Case File No. Property Identification No. City of Prior Lake AND USE APPLICATION Eagle Creek Avenue S.E. / Pr or Lake, M nnesota 55372-1714 / Phone (612) 4474230, Fax (612) 4474245 Type of Application: [] Rezoning, from (nresent zonin~} to (orooosed zoning/ [] 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) Applicable Ordinance Section(s): 'Home Phone: Property Owner(s) Jif mffercnt from Appncantsl: Address:__ Home Phone: 44,B Type of Ownership: Fee Contract for Deed ~ Purchase Agreement , Legal Description of Property (Attach a copy if there is not enough space on this sheet): ko' MOWmV,.,vco ?ee Owner' my knowledge the information provided in this application and other material submitted is correct. In ,e read the relevant sections of the Prior Lake Ordinance and procedural guidelines, and understand that essed until deemed complete by the Planning Director or assignee. ~mr~ ~ ~ / ) Date gnamre Date. THIS SPACE TO BE FILLED IN BY THE PLANNING DIRECTOR OR DESIGNEE PLANNING COMMISSION CITY COUNCIL CONDITIONS: Signature of Planning Director or Designee APPROVED DENIED APPROVED DENIED DATE OF HEARING DATE OF HEARING lu-app2.do¢ NOTICE OF HEARING TO CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING VARIANCES: A .28 FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT A 49.72 LOT WIDTH A T THE FRONT YARD SETBACK INSTEAD OF THE REQUIRED 50 FEET TO BE BUILDABLE FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A FUTURE SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING ON PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE R-1 (URBAN RESIDENTIAL) DISTRICT AND THE SD (SHORELINE OVERLAY) DISTRICT IDENTIFIED AS 16091 NORTHWOOD ROAD. You are hereby notified that the Pdor 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, November 10, 1997, at 6:30 p.m. or as soon thereafter as possible. APPLICANTS: Hillcrest Homes 14122 Louisiana Avenue Savage, MN 55378 PROPERTY OWNERS: Paul and Jeanne Lemke 14624 Wilds Parkway Prior Lake, MN 55372 SUBJECT SITE: 16091 Northwood Road, legally described as Lot 92 Northwood, Scott County, MN. REQUEST: The applicant is intending to remove the existing structure and build a single family detached house. The new house will meet all setbacks and impervious surface coverage. A house plan has not been decided upon at this time. The existing lot of record is 49.72 feet wide at the front yard setback rather than the required 50 feet. The lot consists of 23.035 square 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 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. L'\ 7 IL S\ 7V 97-109\ 7109 .DOC ] 16200 Ea~ ~reeE~ ~v~e.~Rl~., Prior ~ake, ~ir~nesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUN[TY 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 31, 1997 L:\97FILES\97VAR\97-109\97109PN.DOC / SITE LOCATION ~525Z9 77 76 75 74 73 7~ 7O 68 67 64 PLANNING REPORT AGENDA ITEM: SUBJECT: SITE: PRESENTER: REVIEWED BY: PUBLIC HEARING: DATE: 6C CONSIDER APPEAL OF HILLCREST HOMES FROM A RULING OF THE ZONING OFFICER RELATING TO DEFINITION OF A BLUFF AND TOP OF BLUFF (Case File #97.105) 16091 NORTHWOOD ROAD JENNI TOVAR, PLANNER JANE KANSlER, PLANNING COORDINATOR~.--~/ YES X NO-N/A NOVEMBER 10, 1997 INTRODUCTION: Section 5-6-4 of the City Code provides for an appeal process from decisions of the Zoning Officer. The Planning Director is the Zoning Officer in Prior Lake. The action was initiated by an inquiry to the definition of a bluff and top of bluff with regards to a proposed structure on the lot. Attached is a letter to the appellant detailing the definition of a bluff and top of bluff and staff's interpretation of those definitions. In a letter to the city, Hillcrest Homes is appealing staffs interpretation and is providing their interpretation of the same definition. DISCUSSION: Section 5-1-7 Definitions of the City Code reads as follows: BLUFF: A topographic feature such as a hill, cliff, or embankment having the following characteristics (an area with an average slope of less than 18 percent over a distance for 50 feet or more shall not be considered part of the bluff): (A) Part or all'0f the feature is located in a shoreline area; (B) The slope rises at least twenty five feet (25') or more above the ordinary high-water level of the waterbed; (C) The grade of the slope from the toe of the bluff to a point twenty-five feet (25') or more above the ordinary high-water level averages thirty percent (30%) or greater; and (D) The slope must drain toward the waterbed. 16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph, (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER · TOP OF THE BLUFF: The higher point of a fifty foot (50') segment with an average slope exceeding eighteen percent (18%). Planning Department interprets the definition of bluff as follows: · Part or all of the feature is located on a riparian lot. The slope rises at least 25 feet or more above the OHW, anywhere on the slope and any distance from the OHW. On Prior Lake, this means the slope rises to at least 929.0 elevation on any part of the slope on the lot. The grade of the slope from the toe of the bluff to a point 25 feet or more above the OHW averages 30% or greater. On Prior Lake, this means that the grade on the slope from the toe to 929.0 elevation or greater is greater than 30%. This can be any distance from the OHW. · The slope must drain towards the lake. Slopes draining away from the lake are not considered bluffs. Another significant factor in determining bluffs is a grade of 18%. The definition of top and toe of bluff are the highest and lowest points of 50 foot segments with slopes exceeding 18%. It is our interpretation that the entire 50 foot segment with a slope exceeding 18% is part of the bluff, with the highest point being considered the TOP OF BLUFF. Because the definition of TOP OF BLUFF and TOE OF BLUFF do not specify which 50 foot segments or which slopes, the top and toe can be located anywhere on the slope, no specific distance from the OHW. Exhibit A is a diagram of this interpretation. Exhibit B is how this interpretation relates to the specific lot in question. Hillcrest Homes contends that because the definition states that "...an area with an average slope of less than 18 percent over a distance for 50 feet or more shall not be considered part of the bluff' that this area is removed from the slope before a determination on top of bluff is made. Then, when the determination for top of bluff is made, this area cannot be a part of the top of bluff because it has been eliminated by definition. Exhibit C is Hillcrest Homes' interpretation and Exhibit D is how this interpretation affects their specific lot. In meetings on October 22, 1997 and October 4, 1997, the DNR has given staff their interpretation of the definition of Bluff and Top of Bluff. The definitions that the city has adopted are the same as those in the 1987 DNR Shoreland Management Regulations. The DNR has verbally concurred with the Planning Department staff interpretation, and is 3roviding a written response affirming their position. L:\97 FILES\97AP P EAL\97-110\97-110PC.DOC Page 2 Staff's conclusion is that the statement about not including areas with slopes less than 18% is meant to allow construction on fiat areas of lots where there may be multiple bluffs. When the top of bluff is determined to be the highest point of a 50 foot segment where the average slope exceeds 18%, the area downhill from the top of bluff must be part of the bluff by definition. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Recommend to the City Council that it uphold the staff interpretation of the ordinance. 2. Recommend to the City Council that it accept the appeal and find that Hillcrest Homes' interpretation of the ordinance is correct. 3. Defer action on this request for specific reasons. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Alternative No. 1. ACTION REQUIRED: Motion and second expressing the opinion of the Planning Commission. L:\97 FILES\97APPEAL\97-110\97-110PC.DOC Page 3 :~dn'Tg dO J.~ld %8i NtfH1 $S~1"1 gdO'IS HIlM 1NgWOgS ,Og // i11 October 31, 1997 Hitlcrest Homes Attn: Chris Deanovic 14122 Louisiana Avenue Savage, MN 55378 KE: Bluff Interpretation Dear Mr. Deanovic, In regards to your recent inquiry as to What constitutes a bluff, the following are definitions as cited from Section 5-1-7 of the City Code. BLUFF: A topographic feature such as a hill, cliff, or embankment having the following character/sties (an area with an average slope of less than 18 percent over a distance for 50 feet or more shall not be considered part of the bluff): (A) Part or all of the feature is located in a shoreland area; (B) The slope rises at least twenty five feet (25') or more above the ordinary high-water level of the waterbody; (C) The grade of the slope fi.om the toe of the bluff to a point twenty-five feet (25') or more above the ordinary high-water level averages thirty percent (30%) or greater; and (D) The slope must drain toward the waterbody. · TOP OF THE BLUFF: The higher point of a fifty foot (50') segment with an average slope exceeding eighteen percent (18%). Planning Department interprets the definition of bluff as follows: · Part or all of the feature is located on a riparian lot. · The slope rises at least 25 feet or more above the OHW, anywhere on the slope and any distance fi.om the OHW. On Prior Lake, this means the slope rises to at least 929.0 elevation on any part of the slope on the lot.: · The grade of the slope fi.om the toe of the bluff to a point 25 feet or more above the OHW averages 30% or greater. On Prior Lake, this means that the grade on the slope from the toe to 929.0 elevation or greater is greater than 30%. This can be any distance fi.om the OHW. · The slope must drain towards the lake. Slopes draining away fi.om the lake are not considered bluffs. 16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E.. Prior Lake. Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNll~/£MPLOYER Another significant factor in determining bluffs is a grade of 18%. The definition of top and toe ofbluffare the highest and lowest points orS0 foot segments with slopes exceeding 18%. It is our interpretation that the entire 50 foot segment with a slope exceeding 18% is part of the bluff, with the highest point being considered the TOP OF BLUFF. Because the definition of TOP OF BLUFF and TOE OF BLUFF do not specify which 50 foot segments or which slopes, the top and toe can be located anywhere on the slope, no specific distance fi'om the OHW. As per our conversation today, you can appeal this interpretation to the City Council. We will need a letter stating your appeal and how your interpretation differs fi.om ours. Any information you can provide us on your interpretation will be helpful to the City Council and Planning Commission prior to the meeting. The next scheduled Planning Commission date is Monday, November I0, 1997. We will need your interpretation and response to this letter by Monday, November 3, 1997 to be scheduled for that meeting. Please call me if you have any questions. Sincerely, Planner HILLCREST HOMES, INC. ~661721) 48~ 8 .a~7 ~6 ~v(~ 'f~ cLea~ lV~21)e~ ~8.h~n;;~t aph~5044 "A Builder Driven By Quality Craftsmanship and Value." Date Nov. 3,1997 Jennifer Tovar Planner Dept. Of Planning and Zoning City of Prior Lake 16200 Eagle Creek Ave. Prior Lake, MN 55372 Dear Jennifer: Hillcrest Homes, Inc., wishes to appeal the staff interpretation of"Top of the Bluff' and the resulting impact of the staff interpretation on our property at 16091 Northwood Road. As cited from section 5-1-7 of the City code the definition ofa bluffand "Top of the Bluff' are as follows: BLUFF-A topographic feature such as a hill, cli~ or embankment having the following characteristics (an area with an average slope of less than 18 percent over a distance for 50 feet or more shall not be considered part of the bluff): (A) Poxt or all of the feature is located in a shoreland area: (B) The slope rises at least twenty five feet (25) or more above the ordinary high- water level of the water body; (C)The grade of the slope from the toe of the bluffto a point twenty-five feet (25') or more above the ordinary high-water level averages thirty percent (30%) or greater; and (D) The slope must drain toward the water body. TOP OF THE BLUFF- The higher point of a fifty foot (50') segment with an average slope exceeding eighteen pement (18%). The definition clearly states that "an area with an average slope of less than 18% over a di~ance of 50' shall not be considered part of the bluff'. The 50' segment between the 933 and 941 elevation points on the easterly side of the site in question has an average slope of 16%, and therefore should not be considered part of the bluff. In addition, the DNR definition for ''Top of the Bluff' from which the city has adopted their ordinance states: ''Top of the Bluff" means the point on a bluff where there is, as visually observed, a clearly identifiable break in the slope, from steeper to gentler slope above. If no break in the slope is apparent, the top ofbluffshall be determined to be the upper end ora 50' segment, measure on the ground, with an average slope exceeding 18 percent. Builder License # 20036544 · Member of the Builders Association of the Twin Cities Since there is a clearly identifiable break in the slope we feel the 50 t~. segment with an average slope of 16% is not part of the bluff. We believe the low point of this 50 ft. segment clearly identifies "Top of the Bluff", and the point from which the 30 ft. bluffsetback is measured. Using this setback point would place the proposed structure in an appropriate location in refereoce to the adjoinin~ property structures, thus creating consistency in the neighborhood. Pres. Hillcrest Homes, Inc.