The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutHillcrest Homes Presentation STAFF AGENDA REPORT AGENDA #: PREPARED BY: SUBJECT: 5A JENNI TOVAR, PLANNER DONALD RYE, PLANNING DIRECTOR CONSIDER PRESENTATION BY HILLCREST HOMES REPRESENTATIVES SUPPORTING APPEAL FROM A DECISION OF THE ZONING 01'1ilCER RELATING TO BLUFF AND TOP OF BL UFF JANUARY 5, 1998 DATE: INTRODUCTION: Hillcrest Homes is appealing a decision of the Zoning Officer relating to definition of BLUFF and TOP OF BLUFF. This item was originally scheduled to be heard on December I, 1997. Because the revised Zoning Ordinance would render this request unnecessary, the item was continued by the City Council to the same date as the revised Zoning Ordinance is to be adopted or February 28, 1998 whichever is sooner. The petitioner has asked the Mayor that their presentation be heard by the Council. This matter is on the agenda as an information item not an action item. 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 of 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 waterbody; (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 1:\97fi1es\97appeal\97-1 10\971 IOcc4.doc 1 16200 Eagle CreeK Ave. S.E.. Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER 1:\97fi1es\97appeal\97-110\97110cc4.doc 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%). The bluff language was adopted in December 1995 as part of a revision to the Shoreland Ordinance. The language adopted regarding definition of BLUFF, TOP OF BLUFF, TOE OF BLUFF and BLUFF IMP ACT ZONE are those in the DNR model ordinance. Historically, the interpretation of BLUFF and TOP OF BLUFF has been as follows (attached are corresponding surveys): 14964 Pixie Point Circle (Johnson Reiland Construction): Permit issued 5-19-95. Bluff Ordinance did not apply. By current definitions, the house is located in the bluff and would not be able to be constructed in the same location without a variance. 165941neuadona Beach Circle (Muriel Ruonavar):. Permit issued 11-8-96. Survey with contours has no reference to BLUFF. However, there is a BLUFF on the property. The house is located on the TOP OF BLUFF and does not meet the 30' TOP OF BLUFF setback. Staff overlooked the bluff requirements. 5600 Fairlawn Shores (Hillcrest Homes): Permit issued 12-3-96. City Council approved appeal of applicant relating to setback averaging. Survey indicates TOP OF BANK. There is a BLUFF on the lot. Would need contours to determine TOP OF BLUFF. House appears to be located within 30' TOP OF BLUFF setback. Staff overlooked the bluff requirements. 5610 Fairlawn Shores Trail (Hillcrest Homes): Permit issued 1-31-97. Survey indicated TOP OF BANK. This is a bluff. House located within BLUFF. Staff overlooked bluff setback requirements. 16077 Northwood Road (B.IR. Construction):. Permit issued 9-19-97. This is an addition. The addition appears to be conforming. However, City Code (Section 5- 2 1:\97fi1es\97appeal\97-1 10\971 10cc4.doc 5-1) states that nonconforming uses may not be extended, expanded or changed unless to a conforming use. Survey indicates BLUFF LINE. Existing house is setback 30' from the bluff line. Staff assumed the survey to be correct. Would need contours to determine exactly where TOP OF BLUFF is. Existing house appears to be on TOP OF BLUFF and not meeting the 30' TOP OF BLUFF setback, thus non-conforming. 15408 Red Oaks Road (Pinnacle Partners): Permit issued 9-25-97. Survey indicates TOP OF BLUFF. Variance to TOP OF BLUFF denied by Planning Commission and City Council. Staff assumed the survey to be correct and the TOP OF BLUFF correctly located. House is actually located on the TOP OF BLUFF and doesn't meet 30' TOP OF BLUFF setback. Would need contours to determine exactly where TOP OF BLUFF is. 16033 Northwood Road (McKnieht and Associates): Permit approved 12-30-97. Preliminary survey indicated TOP OF BANK and no BLUFF. Upon site visit it was discovered there was a BLUFF. Revised contour survey submitted does not indicate TOP OF BLUFF. Staffhas determined the TOP OF BLUFF to be located at the 932 contour line. Upon request ofthe applicant meetings were held with the DNR. DNR confirms staff interpretation. At the same time, Hillcrest Homes approached the city about building on 16091 Northwood Road and has appealed the interpretation of the Zoning Administrator regarding TOP OF BLUFF. McKnight and Associates have modified their plan to meet bluff setbacks. Of the seven cases noted above, one house was built before the bluff impact ordinance went into effect, three were cases where staff overlooked the bluff provisions of the code, two were cases where the staff relied on the information on the survey which later proved to be incomplete and, in the last case, the permit was finally issued for a structure whiich complies with the bluff impact zone provisions.In the case of the three cases where the bluff provisions were overlooked, these occurred during the first three months of employment of the staff person who was reviewing the permits. Because of the concerns which have been raised regarding the application of the bluff impact provisions, staffhas 3 1:\97fi1es\97appeal\97-11 0\9711 Occ4.doc taken the following steps to address these concerns: 1. Staffhas agreed on the interpretation and method of analysis to be used in all future cases involving the bluff impact zone. 2. Staff has met with personnel from the Department of Natural Resources Division of Waters regarding our interpretation of the bluff impact provisions and they have concurred in our interpretation. 3. We are now requiring site topography shown at 1 foot contour intervals to enable a more accurate determination ofthe top of bluff. 4. Additional staff training will be conducted to insure correct application of the ordinance provisions. 5. Staffhas contacted the Prior Lake-Spring Lake Watershed District for assistance in developing a modified bluff impact ordinance which addresses some of the concerns related to slope stability. The District has indicated they may be willing to provide assistance through their consulting engineer. The Planning Department interprets the definition of bluff as follows: · Part or all ofthe feature is located within the Shore land District. · 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 ofthe 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. · 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 4 1:\97fi1es\97appea1\97-1 10\971 10cc4.doc 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. The definition of TOP OF BLUFF determines what is considered part of the bluff and what is not. 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 "..,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 4, 1997 and October 22, 1997, the DNR has given stafftheir interpretation of the definition of Bluff and Top of Bluff. The definitions that the city adopted in December 1995 are the same as those in the 1989 DNR Shore1and Management Regulations. The DNR has concurred with the Planning Department staff interpretation. Attached is a written response affirming their position. Staffs conclusion is that the statement about not including areas with slopes less than 18% is meant to allow construction on flat 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. The Planning Commission, after much discussion, felt the definitions were ambiguous and cumbersome. The minutes of the meeting are attached. Upon considering staff interpretation of the ordinance as written, they felt staff 5 interpretation was correct. They directed staff to work with the applicant in composing revised definitions and setbacks to be clear, specific and easily understood. This is to be considered with the revised Zoning Ordinance. Staffhas worked with the applicant to write revised definitions. Staff, as well as the DNR, feel the proposed language is more concise and open to less varying interpretations. Attached is a copy of the proposed revision discussed at the Zoning Ordinance public hearing on November 24, 1997. The Planning Commission felt the proposed bluff language was concise and less open to varying interpretations. The Planning Commission recommended the revised bluff language be incorporated into the revised Zoning Ordinance. On December 8, 1997, the Planning Commission recommended the City Council adopt the revised Zoning Ordinance as presented with specific modifications as discussed at the hearings. The revised bluff language will be brought to the City Council as part of the revised Zoning Ordinance. Since the Planning Commission made its recommendation, the Council at a work session asked staff to contact an engineering firm to determine if there are specific engineering design guidelines which can be applied to the definition. The results of this investigation will also be brought back to the Council. Additionally, the Planning Commission heard a variance request from Hillcrest Homes to the bluff and top of bluff setback, as written in the existing City Code. The proposed variance places the proposed home at the same bluff setback as the proposed revised bluff language. While the Planning Commission empathized with the applicant on the timing of the proposed amendment, they felt the hardship criteria were not present with respect to the property. They also stated that it would be improper to grant a variance based on an ordinance recommendation yet to be approved , and adopted. The variance to bluff and top of bluff setback was not appealed by Hillcrest Homes. ISSUES: The City Council must determine if they agree with the staff s interpretation of the ordinance. The issue here is not to determine where the applicants feel the bluff is and the setbacks are in relation to the proposed house, but to 1:\97files\97appeal\97-110\97110cc4.doc 6 determine if staff interpretation of the City Code is correct as written and adopted by the City Council. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Uphold the decision of the zoning officer by adopting Resolution #98-XX. 2. Uphold the position of the appellant and direct staff to prepare a resolution with findings supporting such action. 3. Hear the presentation of the petitioner and direct staff to supply additional information or place the item on a specific agenda for action. RECOMMENDATION: Alternative #3. ACTION REQUIRED: Direction to the staff 1:\97files\97appeal\97-1 10\971 10cc4.doc 7 IT RESOLUTION 98-XX RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL UPHOLDING T.I::1.E RECOMMENDATION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION IN 1.H.E MAl u,R OF AN A..: l"EAL BY HILLCREST HOMES, INe., OF A DECISION OF THE ZONING OFFICER RELATING TO BLUFF AND TOP OF BLUFF, MOTION BY: WHEREAS, WHEREAS, WHEREAS, WHEREAS, WHEREAS, WHEREAS, SECOND BY: the Prior Lake City Council continued a hearing on the lst day of December, 1997, to act on an appeal by Hillcrest Homes Inc. of the Zoning Officer's interpretation of definition of BLUFF and TOP OF BLUFF to December 15, 1997; and on December 15, 1997, the Prior Lake City Council continued the hearing until February 28, 1998 or the same date as the Revised Zoning Ordinance is heard, whichever is sooner; and on January 5, 1998, the Prior Lake City Council conducted a public hearing to act on the appeal; and the City Council reviewed the definitions of BLUFF and TOP OF BLUFF as written and adopted in 1995; and the appellant has not set forth adequate reasons for overturning the decision of the Zoning Officer; and the Planning Commission has recommended the City Council uphold the decision of the Zoning Officer: NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY 1.H.E CITY COUNCIL OF PRIOR LAKE: FINDINGS 1. Hillcrest Homes Inc. appealed the decision of the Zoning Officer relating to the interpretation of BLUFF and TOP OF BLUFF as described in Section 5-1-7 of the City Code in order to permit a future residential dwelling on property located in the R-l (Suburban Residential) District and the SD (Shoreland Overlay) District at the following location, to wit: 16091 Northwood Road, legally described as Lot 92, Northwood Road. 2. The Planning Commission reviewed the appeal as contained in Case File #97-110, held hearings thereon on November 10, 1997, and recommended upholding the decision of the Zoning Officer. 3. The Prior Lake City Council reviewed this appeal on January 5, 1998. 1:\97fi1es\97appeal\97-110\ccres.doc Page 1 16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S,E" Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER 4. The City Council has considered the effect of overturning the decision of the Zoning Officer 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 appeal on the Comprehensive Plan. 5. On November 10, 1997, the Planning Commission directed staff to work with the appellant to compose definitions that are less ambiguous to be considered with revisions to the Zoning Ordinance to be heard by the Planning Commission on November 24, 1997. 6. Upholding the decision of the Zoning Officer results in a legal building envelope of approximately 10,330 square feet. 7. The contents of Planning Case File #97-11 0 are hereby entered into and made a part of the public record and the record of the decision for this case. CONCLUSION Based upon the Findings set forth above, the City Council hereby upholds the decision of the Zoning Officer and concurs with the recommendation of the Planning Commission that by definition of TOP OF BLUFF, area with slopes less that 18% over a distance of 50 feet, cannot be excluded from the bluff. 50 Foot areas with slopes less than 18% located only between the toe of the bluff and the top of the bluff are intended to be excluded. Passed and adopted this 5th day of January, 1998. YES NO Kedrowski Mader Peterson Schenck Vacant Kedrowski Mader Peterson Schenck Vacant {Seal} City Manager, City of Prior Lake I:\97fi1es\97appeaI\97 -11 O\ccres,doc Page 2 ~~ z::) 0"" _to ~LL ~O <cWn. a:O !:: ~.... to ~ ~C )(ZZ w ~.c::( LLLL LLLL ~:) cnffi %8 t NlfHJ. /:/31.113/:/9 t 3d01S HllM lN3VVf>3S .OS :JJt179 :40 .L"ZJ~d .J.{J N. \' %8 t NtfHl SS31 ~ 3d01S HllNt lN3Wf>3S .OS ~ - d. ~~ cl 0 .Ji= - "'< t- - "uu- ~U\ '5::.(.1 u.U- u. u.~ '::)-J ~~ u. cf')O - ~ \- . ffb I: E b EEl:, I~ hEb' I ~ S f.1:, I ~ J I diEh - ~ I I I I ~ L Eb - ~ . ,. , I ~O ,- I ~ . ~ " o ~I , ,<_--3 r I:. I?,..~ C/) ~ 1- _ ~JO\ o - In ~ . ~ ..\'n!1n <:'1:. (-;) ~b"~- \>'" ~ ?~ ~ -" E b #) ~b t...e6 I~ 8t::b - !'~h CO{. (,"1:. ,o'l. ,.. ~/~& I /:/b ,., I {, ;j'b 'Ib ('6 4'6 (,/6 o~6 . IQ!, ~ o ~ c\c . ~ o ('"") o V) UJ ~ o ....J en I ~.. ,00- . - ~(:) _N In ,.. ~Ob .:"'.. ... t:> (:) ~ in - Q ,.. _In ,.. - 0 N -In N o -Q V) (\') _In ('I') -Q 'li:t _In 'l:t '-:'~ In . It) It) _ 0 CD -In CD _0 " _It) " -0 CO _In CO Q 0) - -0 It) _ ;-." '. i\ .Q ,>- 0 ,.. o ..;J en - .]: I- ~ en w - ..J /nr;;;'" ,/ ~lf) / ()<<.- a. >tJ ./4> a. '-:~ Z o - i .-: w a: 0.. '1:1: W I- Z - en - LL U. ~ en ~ ]: m I- - m - ]: >< W /:> ,y ,.\. Q\'~iJ) -4' '. l 0/ -i} -> I. /,- ..<:ir' ,<:..{)/ / /, ,o'ti >A- \ 4 /1;: . / //. /'" ..~; o tJ 1,> t (, I; ./ (i':'~ / // ~'//-)' // ./ /// , ~,/ ~- \ 'I \ (i \ //'" / -I ~'''' -- ;c 't 1 O\,. . '(' c; o...e -' OJ.. :J ~ (J 19 :J 0 C7 'o~ 0, .'" /" ~""::,. .;..' ~::; .... '';, t iJ / 1lit! , 'v , / /' . I { / ! ! I "'''~/ d' :-? _ ~':", _-;' - ~.~ .J // _A-r: ~ PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 10, 1997 C. Case #97-110 Hillcrest Homes appeal of the decision of the Zoning Administrator relating to the definition of a bluffin the Shoreland District. Planner Jenni Tovar presented the staff report dated November 10,1997. Section 5-6-4 of the City Code provides for an appeal process from decisions ofthe 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. The City sent 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. Staff s conclusion is the statement not including areas with slopes less than 18% is meant to allow construction on flat 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. The Department of Natural Resources concurs with staffs interpretation stated in Hydrologist, Pat Lynch's letter dated November 7, 1997. Comments from the public: Chris Deanovic, 14122 Louisiana Avenue, Savage, representing Hillcrest Homes highlighted the bluff section from the DNR Shore1and Regulations. He understands there is a bluff and went on to explain his belief of where the top of the bluff should be. He knows the DNR agrees with staff but also indicated the ordinance is ambiguous and can be flexible. Mr. Deanovic went on to explain their proposed home stating they are trying to position their building not to obstruct their view of the lake (between the two neighboring structures). Their interpretation of the bluff would be a 10% slope. Winston Simonson, 16087 Northwood Road said he was present for curiosity purposes. He is a neighbor and said the house in question is 24 years old. Mr. Simonson explained he is not complaining but was interested how the new structure will affect them. He was hoping the new home would be set back so they could see the lake. Deanovic went on to explain the 50 foot segment on the back of a proposed home with a 9 foot difference. They have no desire to impact the bluff. The DNR accepts a 20 foot setback, Prior Lake 30 feet. Rye explained the City was informed by the DNR that a couple of years after they promulgated these rules with the definition the City adopted, they administratively adopted the language that talks about where one can observe the slope change from greater to lesser. Prior Lake adopted the Shore1and Rules definition. L:\97F1LES\97PLCOMM\PCMIN\MN1II097.DOC 4 Winston Simonson pointed out the obvious slope always referred to as a cliff on the survey. There is quite a grade to the front of the house compared to the back. He feels the slope should end at the front of the building. The house is going to be crowded no matter where it is placed. Mr. Simonson stated he received a variance 24 years ago. The Board at the time said he had to get written permission on each side. One neighbor refused and the other stated he had to maintain the 15 foot setback. Jim Albers, Storms Circle, pointed out staffs interpretation opposed to his interpretation of the bluff with the 50 foot segments and feels the error is in the definition of the top of the bluff and suggested a proposed top of bluff definition: "The lower point of the closest 50 feet segment to the toe of the bluff that has an average slope of 18% or less." He feels it is really hard to enforce because of the complicated definition. The DNR has two documents for the City, one regulation and a sample administrative ordinance. V onhof pointed out that surveys in the Shoreland District should have contour lines. Marv Mirsch, has a seasonal home at 15432 Red Oaks Road, permanent home in St. Paul, presented a proposed Minnesota Rules from the legislature provided by Pat Lynch of the DNR. One word is missing in the Prior Lake Ordinance "to find it necessary to exclude from the definition ofthe bluff any areas that .... with an area slope of 18% or less over a 50 foot segment. He feels the City should exclude anything 18% or less in the bluff area. Mr. Mirsch believes the ordinance interpretation is an exclusion not inclusion. Rye said Mr. Mirsch and Mr. Albers definitions are correct stating the DNR allows flexibility. But the issue is Prior Lake's definition. The bluff impact zone includes the bluff itself. Comments from the Commissioners: Kuykendall: . The definition is defined in the Shore1and Management hand book, Zoning Ordinance and DNR Rules and Model Ordinance. . The only option is to stay out of the bluff impact zone. Stamson stated the discussion is if staffs interpretation is correct. Kuykendall: . Staffs interpretation is correct. . Will recommend to redefine the definition. L:\97FILES\97PLCOMM\PCMlN\MN1 1 1097.DOC 5 Stamson: · At first agreed strictly with staff, then agreed with applicant, but after discussion this evening believe staff s interpretation is clearly correct. · The definition of bluff is really an independent description of what the top ofa bluff IS. · The staff interpreted the ordinance correctly and is backed by the DNR. Cramer: · The wording is contradicting. There is no consistency. The DNR is responsible. · The intent of the ordinance is to prevent someone from coming in the future where their home slides into the lake. · People will ask why did the City let me build in a bluff? . Staffs interpretation is correct. V onhof: · Concurs with staff and Commissioners. · It should not be that hard for residents and staff to interpret. The intent is to have bluff protection. . There is a second issue to deal with after this motion. MOTION BY VONHOF, SECOND BY CRAMER, TO RECOMMEND TO CITY COUNCIL TO UPHOLD THE STAFF INTERPRETATION OF THE ORDINANCE AS OUTLINED IN THE STAFF REPORT. Vote taken signified ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED. Open Discussion: Kuykendall suggested having someone from the DNR come in an explain the negative impacts of this issue. We need to be educated, what steps can one take and maintain the ordinance. He believes an engineer can come in and show how to stabilize the land and meet the objectives. V onhof agreed. Some one should come up with better definitions. Stamson stated the DNR obviously did a study and this was the conclusion. His concern is the original way it was written it was fairly restricted but now administratively, the DNR has become loose in their definition. There should be bluff standards. Meet certain criteria. Stamson and Cramer's concern is the definition of the top of the bluff. Rye said he would be happy to meet with the applicant and go over a definition to present to City Council. Until it is changed, staffs recommendation will follow the ordinance. L:\97FILES\97PLCOMM\PCMIN\MNl 1 1097.DOC 6 MOTION BY KUYKENDALL, SECOND BY VONHOF, TO REFER THIS BACK TO STAFF FOR STUDY AND FOR STATING THE PRACTICE IN SIMILAR COMMUNITIES WITH SIMILAR ISSUES AS PART OF THE ZONING CODE ORDINANCE ON NOVEMBER 24, 1997. Vote taken signified ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED. 7. Announcements and Correspondence: MOTION BY KUYKENDALL, SECOND BY VONHOF, TO MODIFY ALL REQUIREMENTS IN THE ZONING ORDINANCE TO HAVE ALL LOT MEASUREMENTS ROUNDED UP NO GREATER THAN .5 FEET. V onhof suggested the Zoning Administrator could make the decision. There would still be a process but could be determined administratively. Kuykendall retracted the motion and agreed to have staff come up with a practical solution. Cramer questioned the availability of the new zoning ordinance. Rye responded by the end of the week. Kuykendall wanted to bring back a previous issue of "traffic calming" on Highway 13. The Commissioners would like to reconsider changing the truck traffic routing by the State to County Road 17 to minimize the traffic on Highway 13. He suggested a study using County Road 27 and 21 to alleviate traffic. Kuykendall also suggested revisiting all traffic controls on Highway 13. This would bring in State, County and local engineers. He would like to see 4-way stop signs. 4-way stops it will force truck traffic off Highway 13 and reduce the volume of traffic. This issue should be part of a workshop after the zoning ordinance. MOTION BY KUYKENDALL, SECOND BY VONHOF, THAT COUNCIL BE APPRISED OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S INTEREST IN REVIEWING THE ISSUE OF HIGHWAY 13 FROM A STRATEGIC POINT OF VIEW RELATIVE TO TRAFFIC CALMING AND THE POTENTIAL OF PULLING NEIGHBORHOODS TOGETHER INSTEAD OF SEPARATING NEIGHBORHOODS AND WE INVITE THE STATE AND COUNTY PEOPLE TO JOIN US IN WORKSHOPS. Vote taken signified ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED. 8. Adjournment: CHAIRMAN STAMSON ADJOURNED THE MEETING AT 8:44 P.M.. Donald Rye Director of Planning Connie Carlson Recording Secretary L:\97F1LES\97PLCOMM\PCMIN\MN1 1 1097.DOC 7 Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Metro Waters - 1200 WamerRoad, St. Paul, MN 55106-6793 Telephone: (612) 772-7910 Fax: (612) 772-7977 November 7,1997 Mr. Don Rye City of Prior Lake 16200 Eagle Creek Avenue, S.E. Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 RE: INTERPRETATION OF BLUFF DEFINITION IN SHORELAND AREAS Dear Mr. Rye: Oflate, we have had a great deal of discussion regarding bluffs within shoreland areas of the City of Prior Lake. This discussion has included the bluff failure which occurred earlier this year, as well as number of potential and proposed developments on lots where bluffs are present. The City of Prior Lake has adopted language, from Minnesota Rules, defining bluff, top afbluff, and toe afbluff I have reviewed the City's ordinance, and have met with City staff to review the administrative procedures used to detennine top and toe of bluff for specific projects. While the language in state rule is admittedly a bit cumbersome, I concur with the manner in which the city is administering the ordinance as it pertains to bluff determination. The intent of the regulations limiting development on and within the bluff and bluff impact zones is to ensure slope stability, and to preserve the natural "t't'......(luce of these topographic features in shoreland areas. The 30 foot structure setback .u.v..... the top of bluff provides a minimum distance between the bluff top and the proposed building site for the maneuvering of building materials and equipment during construction. If the existing definitions of bluff, top of bluff, and toe of bluff, as adopted, are deemed difficult to efficiently and effectively administer and enforce by city staff, the DNR would entertain, under the flexibility provisions of the Shoreland Rules, alternative definitions, provided the original intent of bluff protection is not compromised. If you have any questions, please call me at 772-7910. Sincerely, t~~ ~~, Patrick J. Lynch-rh Area Hydrologist ) rn @ (g O\Y1 (g NOV I 2 19m ~. c: Ed Fick, Shoreland Hydrologist y DNR Information: 612-296-6157. j-SOO-766-6000 . TTY: 612-296-5484,1-800-657-3929 .-\n E4U"1 Opportunity Employer Who \"a!ues Divcrsit: ft Printed on Recycled Paper Containing" f.., \linimum lJf lore Po...t-Consumer \Vaste HHI HILLCREST HOMES, INC. 16714 Jaguar Ave., Lakeville, Minnesota 55044 (612) 898-7663 Office (612) 898-3364 Fax "A Builder Driven By Quality Craftsmanship and Value." Date Nov. 3,1997 Jennifer Tovar Planner Dept. OfPIanning and Zoning City of Prior Lake 16200 Eagle Creek Ave. Prior Lake, MN 55372 Dear Jennifer: Hillcrest Homes, Inc., wishes to appeal the staff int':'J.}JJ.etation of "Top of the B1ufr and the resulting impact of the staff int;;'J.}JJ.etation on our property at 16091 Northwood Road. As cited from section 5-1-7 of the City code the definition ofa bluff and "Top of the Bluff' are 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 shaD 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 water body; (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 water body. TOP OF THE BLUFF- The higher point ofa fifty foot (50') segment with an average slope exceeding eighteen percent (18%). The definition clearly states that " an area with an average slope of less than 18% over a distance of 50' shaD 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 of bluff shall be determined to be the upper end of a 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 identif"Jable break in the slope we feel the 50 ft. segment with an average slope of16% is not part of the bluff. We believe the low point of this SO ft. segment clearly identifies "Top of the Bluff", and the point from which the 30 ft. bluff setback is measured. Using this setback point would place the proposed structure in an appropriate location in ref~J. ~J.J.ce to the adjoining property structures, thus creating consistency in the neighborhood. .'\ $. z o - !:;u. ~LL. w:) a:...I 0.10 a:LL o wO ... I-'Zo. - -0 10_1- :E (/) c >< ~Z w 0<( -:t: u. ...LL (/):::) W...l a:m g~ ..J - :J: ,.... cs I;:> hOb . ~Cb \l\u.. \-U- ~':) U,}-1 ~<D LL u. '" u..O~ Q ~ - -J~'" ~Ci~ bl- cn~u. - d. \b ":l: u a r ~''''' ". '" t..;~ - 0 ,... 20b ~C>b Qf" ~ 1,& ,;,'& h1b 6 ....sf b OJ/I, {,(" <ff6 ~, 6 o~~ _In ..- - 0 C\I -It) N ~ o ~ \J\C -- ~ 0/08l N'rfHl 5531 t 3d01S HLIM LN3Wf)3S ,os .0 ~N It) .... o ,... U) 0 -0 V) (") _It) (") _0 '-::t _in ~ --:;-0 I.t) . It) It) - 0 CD -It) CD _0 '" _It) ..... _0 co _It) co - 0 0) . 0 It) (0) - 1\ -::: - "... 0 . 0 ,... :I ~n7g .:J 0 dO..L. ~ <t ~ ou, ffb CE b f ,q, I; f, Co cb I I Srb J ~ I dic.e J ~ I I I t ~ L U, -~ ~ ~ ,_ I . I UJ' ~I . I~ R,., - -'C;; r :. ~ 10\ 0, o :-1..... c.. It) '-/~~~_'- iA!1. -~ o ("') ~~ u. ~ -J ~ u.. c o V) 0/08l N'rfHl 1:131'rf31:19 t L 5 3d01S HLIM LN3W93S ,os Z UJ 0.. o .....J lZl i ~,. . \ 'CO' : I . ..... -~---:-- ~ .:~ .ti , , .~- ", U) , .... .':1: I- ~ c,(/) ',';,'W h .., ~- ...I 0- n. c:( z o -- .~ ~ w a: n. a: w I- Z - - (/) w :E o :J: l- (/) W a: g ..J - J: 3: o J: "t"'I~' '. a~:U --fY 7J /.'; // ~ 4' ,4}/ ~' I. ,dd .>A.' /..y / I; '. 'v t I, ,'/ ~,D, 0 ~e:' -\IV//<> ( /' \ ([ \ n" / \ ..\/ 'l ,/ \. '0 l- I' {t 'P" '1 ./ ~a <,,9 ~~ .'( ,"f. , ( I rt\ca · , C I- - m - J: X w < "'0 .." ........ ~ -:" /., E-, ---. c' 9 - ~ :::- ',7 - ';1 'r- ;;., ~:c r. \. - "\. ~' ,1',) \ \ /' \ / \~'.gl :\ ?' . p' . \ , . Hillcrest Homes Attn: Chris Deanovic l4122 Louisiana Avenue Savage, MN 55378 RE: 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 characteristics (an area with an average slope ofless than 18 percent over a distance for 50 feet or more shall not be considered part of the bluff): (A) Part or all ofthe feature is located in a shore1and 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 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 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 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. 16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.L Prior Lake. Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 .-\N EQL".-\L OPPORTt;0IITY E:v1PLOYER · Another significant factor in determining bluffs is a grade of 18%. The definition oftop 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. 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 from 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 10, 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. o;~~ ~j~ ~er Tovar Planner _____..__,..~.......... ~,L__....:..._ ~.~_... MEMORANDUM RE: CC: November 18, 1997 Planning Commission Don Rye, Planning Director Jenni Tovar, Planner Proposed Bluff Language Jane Kansier, Planner; Bob Hutchins, Building Official; Pat Lynch, DNR; Hillcrest Homes; Jim Albers and BUD Waund, Edina Realty; McKnight and Associates DATE: TO: FROM: Upon the direction of the Planning Commission at its November 10, 1997 meeting, the Planning Staff met with a local developer and real estate agent. The purpose of the meeting was to write revised bluff and top of bluff definitions to alleviate the cumbersome and difficult to interpret current bluff definitions. Based on this meeting, the Planning Staff is proposing the following amendments to the Shoreland and Zoning Ordinances: TOE OF BLUFF: Definition to remain the same. TOP OF BLUFF: The highest point of the slope, as measured from the toe of the bluff, where the grade is 30 percent or greater. BLUFF SETBACK: As measured from the TOP OF BLUFF, the upper end of a segment at least 25 feet in length having an average slope less than 18%. This removes the floating 50 foot segment. TOP OF BLUFF is determined as measured from the TOE OF THE BLUFF, with the slope measured between the 1 foot contours. The building setback is determined by the slope as measured from the TOP OF BLUFF (25 feet minimum), not distance to meet the intent of the ordinance. If the slope from the top of the bluff, towards the street, never drops below 18%, then the lot would be un buildable without a variance. - tl . 40' ~ ()-l " ' 1....!1 !to ' pi JO" -25' '20' 15' - 10' ! 5' .", y. 95' , 1 00'1'1 ~IO' I 90' I 85' PROPOSED TOP OF BLUFF AND BLUFF SETBACK EXAMPLE --- ~ o q: ~ UJ CI) CJ ~ o ::::! r- ::) IV> to <r 1 . . ...... 11.2% , 80' I 75' 25' I 70' ~ lYl Q"- t: :) ~ ~ Q. f2 J.-... \f) IV> lr " f'l\ ~ l,.~ '" ~ '"If r U- It- 'lI ,() rr o. " rl ~ 11' 0'- 'il 0 (/"0 1$..... ()- 0': ~ (): "-9 iF-~L,.... 0- ~ ,,- 0-- .... ~'Y) ~'f (1'0... "':: 0 l/'-. 0-0 ~ Q f" <1' (, /--.. 0' :J oJ (;. 'Cl C/' .... V1 u C) :t- et- ;! 0/1 vJ . 65' , 55' .r 56'1 I 45' I 35' I 30' I 25' , 15' ; 40' 60' 20' 10' :(..,~~ 1', I' - ~.\:40' I,,~"\~ ! J ' I ~ -35.' /' :.! ).,.. ,; = 1~~n';~! ! ~,,"j4'". -' \ :25' I 1 I " 120' 15' - 10' " i 5' .-\ "), 95' 100','1-;" \0" ~~ '" ~ cr- ..........' , 90' I 85' PROPOSED TOP OF BLUFF AND BLUFF SETBACK EXAMPLE If ~ " b/ ~ is ;:! ~ ~ to: ... ct- , I I, : 17 2% -----~ 32' , ct I I I I I 80" 75' I 70' "- ... 0- tt :::) ~ ~ Cl. E ...... u ~ I'>) IY) 0'-, IV} If '~- fl) '"" \1- "', (} ..... ..' h) lr- lJ Q_ ~ 0., I~' III '" 0'- ,j 25' 65' . 55' 60' .1 56" I 45' I 40' I 35' o ~ '" <l'~-:>" ().: "J) a:....L,.... 0- , ... 11'-, 0'0 to") ;:~ "'::-0 go... .... - 0 "'11' l:\, <l r-- lI' ~ ~ '0 (to 50' I 3D' I 25'" 20' I 15' 10' I 5' V) () 0- ..... u :t- o IS- at! vJ I I , I , I " -:--S-- - Jf'S '-'1. o -40' f"{~~ " (t', , , ~ , 2'" .... I : - f :. .jO' . I , 1 ~25' .l.'20' - 15' - 10' ~ 5' "l .., I DO' 95' 90' I 1 , 1" ~ '\0'. PROPOSED TOP OF BLUi~'F AND BLUFF SETBACK EXAMPLE -- I 85' I - I 80" 75' I I 70' 65' 60' tJ ~ [.... fjj Ii is ::d ::::J ~ ~ e '^ - ~ '.. '~ ~ tL% ~ I .... \J ... l- v-. i . ,t I 55' 501 I I : I I 45' '40' 25' I I 35' 30' ~ .:j 4! ~ 8' E:::. "- Il " :s- O"- , li -.9 , .)- " v- f:> ~ ~.\ ~~ ,\...\'1 ,,--\ " "'.\ ,. '1~\ ,,~, e 1 enlf ,f ,,:l1 ., I . 'I 25".20' .. ,. I 15' 10' q.a&f II ".. cl ;... ...... tJ ';)- Q It" ad vJ I 5' SURVEYS RELATING TO BLUFF INTERPRETATION ON PREVIOUSLY APPROVED BUILDING PERMITS 1:\97files\97appeal\97-11 0\9711 Occ4.doc 7 .[ f 1 -j~,.:"..,~I._. ),'0 ~" f .i> ;~ j~ I[ ~ -I. :J: 'i ~< \": : I , I, ! ~ 1.1 ;':i "'j':y. I ;) ') ,jU)"')~7> - 'f-.I e I Ci.nd J5-211-94 , ri3eS C<.b()"e C,dC}.DaJ , <.)JO~ to q,;z'l ,s $810. , hOJ~ ,~ bv' It- ;" b'vf'f street o / / / / '1 11 I'L j- '>--.0 (; .~ 0~ I ~ .gSI,78~ '-_"/ Bldg area = 2819 Sq. Ft. Lot area = 14,661 Sq, Ft. Coverage = 19,23 % I, :1 ; I \ Scale: 1" Pixie Point Circle 30' DESCRIPTlON \:i... I hereby certify that this survey. plan. or report was prepored by me or under my direct supervision and that I om 0 duly Registered Land Surveyor under the Lows of the State ~nesota. ~ ~~ ." I.t Date (J l'lt"APIL 1<1'9 S" Reg. .No. 8140 Lot 13 FIRST ADDITION TO EASTWOOD Scott County. Minnesota Assumed bearings shown o Denotes iron monument C EX~i~) Qropose<0 BRANDT ENGINEERING & SURVEYING' 1600 West 143rd Street, Suite 206 Burnsville, MN 55306 (61"2) 435-1966 J5-211-94 \'\",.,..',,;j. " '.,";';,'~ . .' "r~ f ~: ; ", ~ (., ~ c ,_. ~ ~ 'l,. J~ i~ '\ { :i ~ A /1,' i~, ~, " . -.-:;/ I~t"! ll~ 9~ Ct4~ ~""" .:::-;.; ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ '1l..P-5L/O (Ylvrie.) i2vof1a.va-r 1I.P5CJJ.{ J,'=nJvo.donc... 6~G.h c,'''"'-IA LC /lING t. AREA TABULATION according SC( -t f\ ~S o-b)J>e.. q;)''1.0 f SlDf'<a ilxwd ~s 30?tJ - Q1.111CdIJ 30.5'0. ~ h00SL. ;s b<l.lt ;" bl<.Jft, IIMPERVIOUS RATIO = 29,98~ fLOT k LAKESHORE11 HOUSE = 3066 SF, DRIV~. de WAll< = 846 S.F. / I . I I TOTAL'" 3912 S.F. I / / <0' / / / t;.".,.t>,/ / I- / / / .. LOT'" 10233 S.F. SHORELINE = 2817 S,F. +/- TOTAL'" 13050 S,F. +/- ~ ~ 5 ~ ~ ~ O' ... ~. ~ ~ { 1- ... ~. ~ ,# ~ I ~~' ~.'1~ -; Z- ~ 30.\970 UJpsfprgt"pn &: 1 ENGrNEERS & LAN! E E.'ir::.t!J1AR K: ~';". I-h II tFsf 1-10 rr--e :::, Sl'''lVEY PREPARED FOR HILLCREST HOMES 16714 JAGUAR AVENUE LAKEVILLE, MN. 55044 Valley Surveying CO.. P A SUITE /20-C, /6670 FRANKLIN TRIlIL FRANKLIN TRAIL OFFICE CONDOMINIUM PRIOR LAKE, MINNESOTA 55372 TELEPHONE (612) 447-2570 ~ ...... - --.............. ~. .1> J ,o"?/Oly 1'[ ? 90;:1 ,/ I~,/ ~; '-~- .''''', '-, '. '., ~O '~. ., . ........... ",- ,.; (/lye "" "",C J?O", 0((' "J't 'r 0.... oCe'\- (0,. ~O; (0,.. - <, '" """" J.fOUsc - -- :."~" 0.. -J . " <- " ,!~ , "",- l'f1i' '.r~ (0)- L/ GARAGl SlA8 El 9]&,43 ~---./' HUe (L ';3'.70 ~ 48' ,o,t!' 1'.P1Nr ,f{~ ~\Je [L 93363 ------ ' 9j~l -- I , '0' 4., C.\ ~ I I I 1 ______ ",' "4997 ,< [L -~~~ f!J' ft1eo$ . 93415T 4'i,~-.-""-- --9Je~-- T C EL -~ ---...._ .,. .s -__ 934.'" T.~ '''.10 --..!:.~/R1..4ul "', rr'N S '----'i9f!E S 935./9 l>r::SCRIP'J"[, ,., -If!~l.. Lot 2.4, l"^II:I..\~li'i 'llUlH'~;, ~;C~)tt L.:OlllU:'Y, i'"linrll-~RQta. ^lso S!l~IV,jIt'J all existinq iT l~ '("C'Vt!l'l':nt: "'~ :ilH:','ey\~d thi:l I ~'th d~,y of. ,J1ll.y I I.lJ(.1(.. Li&-fYOiJ Jb()() b,rlt<w,O --" - .., "',' :J """ {5 T ~ ......i.::f i,;~' h " ",.''''1. 1 ~'~ ~ . ''It . .~ ~ ("'5<,> b "'~ 9' a ,.. <<( 0>( "I. () t21 ~ - ... 310f" tv 7 a. 7. () ()(\ !A1uw" . l.4J.,..~ SJ()f'c tv "n3. <) '" ...J/.'17c~ '\ (.;; .. Top II r bJ v ff' ......., l<nd;.J/l tA,)1:iY1 ,)..tt Cd" fUll......S .*, HOiJ~ '" tu. rh,,, bJu rr. " ~ \" 'I .\ l j 2r3 ~' \" .,:/r " "'/;, :~ l( " ') "00,1 I REV. 11/13/96 TO"'be '4' TO PROPOSEO HOUSE, , JL REV. 10/24/96 Tp SHO-.y ELrv, AT TOP 01' BANK. REV. 10/21/96 TO SH'OW HSE a DECK ON LOT 28 a TOP Of' BANK ON LOT 24, a TOE OF StOPE. r.hp. Joc,_:\- tnp-. Off Lot Area above EL. 904.0 · ~ 336 .q. ft. 933.1..> I::' ".": ,'I;still'l '/l"",lle ;'~I.;'Vdti.()1l ~ NC1l'E,S I Bendu;!. '~':', ': lldViltioll ').:!. ~)h tDp 111,lt of. hyd. tlt L~.)t::; 23 ,oy ,'.1 NET lMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE: 2-'.0.'. o I 20 4d_~36.Q.J DENOTES PROPOSEr, FINISHED GRl\OE ELEVATION l _ DE"ons PROR:lSElJ DmECTiON OF SURFhCE DRAINAGE Sf r PROPOSEr.> GARAGE SL hll h' ELEVA nON 936, 20 SE' PROPOSED TOP OF BLOCK A T ELEVATION 936 53 SET THE LOWEST FLOOR AT ELEVhTION 92834 SCALE FEET IN o ~~':"'(~e;n~::l~~~ i~" LIce",. No 10183 . O""Of"" Iron monum<<tt 'C\und ~ Df!f'C""" P K Nail ,~, . ~,~'lco'.P~lb~\tl3 .how _.od _ 01 R~v._~ 7/31/96 To $how 101 Ar.o '. dlat. 10 904_0 on adJolnlnq 101.. / htrl!'by ctr';'y that ,,.. JAJrVeY ....as. I" by mr or under my direct wprrvision and Hwlt I am a duly hce"..d Land Swwyor und.. th. bwa of fh~ Stafe of Mlnnuo'G. , ,~ ,r- ," ' ~. ....~~' ~;/.....~I"'~....:.:.~....... Ontf! ~~.... ......;- Llce"s. No. IOUIl PI/ F N(J --.!!~~~ E'OOK 219 PA61': !-+,llLv(st SURVEY PREPARED FOR: HILLCREST HOM E 5 /67/4.JAGUAR AVENUE LAKEVI L LE, MN. 55'044 El~::SCRIPTION : Valley Surveying CO.. P. A. SUITE 120-C, 16670 FRANKLIN TRAIL FRANKLIN TRAIL OFFICE CONDOMINIUM PRIOR LAKE, MINNESOTA 55372 TELEPHONE (6/2) 447- 2570 Lot 25, FAInt.AWN SHORES, Scott County. Minnesota. And that part of t.ot 26, of said plat lying westerly of the following described line: Homes 9 7-QJ C> e;f.oJO r<<,(ICi\Wf\ ';)h()Y~S Beginning at the southwesterly corner of said t.ot 26: thence northeasterly to a point on the northerly line of said t.ot 26, distant 12.20 feet southeasterly of the northwesterly corner of said t.ot 26, and there terminating. Also showing the location of all existing iJmprovements as surveyed' this 12th day of July, 1996. Lot Area above EL. 904.0= 8,055 sq. ft. PlY IOff <"( l.4J..-.c;. ? 9o;? f\ , / ';? , S /96 NOTES' Benchl11arl~ Elevation 937,66 top nut of hyd. at & 24 925.8 Denotes existing grade elevation . I> (r~<;, e<.bil"e. "fJ."t.O . ";>IOp,,- lu 'B3.S .) 4'-/70 nuc1 '-Oi"'to,,"s tv de k.'""",,1-(. {!J<c.c..+ -:,J~'f'( to "rd'} , hDv)<!. I':> ; ("I bluff HOU9E cot4ST. I ( uttOEf' roP e\.oe~ :~e.18 'Il.AMJE [.\.. '-.... .......... '~5.,. ( 925.8 ) Cenotes pC"oposed finished gC"ade elevations 1 ,.Otl.~oOO ";j o line from Ihe existing deck on 101 26 'f 0 the proposed deck on 101 24 REV. 1/24/97 To ehanQO propoud lop of block 01011, REV. 1/24/97 To show flroplo"" plotform a di" to 904 on 10' 24 o ZO Set the proposed garage slab at elevation 936.66 Set the top block at elevation 936.99 The loo.rest flooC" elevation will be 920.20 Net Lot Area = 8,055 sq. ft. Net proposed impervious coverage = 26.74 l REV...1/9/97 To show proposed hOUI! a,-gradltl, Denotes proposed dixection of finished suC"face dC"ainage oroo elc. Rev.10/7/96 To show exIst. hse. removed. Roy. 7131/96 To .how 101 Aroo S dl.,. to 904.0 on OO)0lnln9 lo's, , h~'ltby crrtify that this !urv!)' was prtparftJ by m. or under my dirtct Jup'fvi,ion and tho' , GQ1 a duly ricltn,ed Land Surveyor under rhf IaWI of 'h, Stat,..<1A Mlnnfloto P. /OaAi.~ .~t_ lfe.n'f! No lOIf1.3 40 I SCALE IN FEET o DonotlJ 1/2 Inch,'4Inch Iron. monument St' and marked by lic.ns. No. '0183 . D,na'", IrQn mnnumltn' found II Denot."" K. Noil yilt' ~/1/rzL_ FILE No. e3'>9 ~r: 27 110 ROOK Cf l - L/J V 6.r. iZ. (O(1~r-rtJ(JI:lrl I (g071 NIY1hwJCd j?d 1"lIj I Il / / (\ s<~ e<.IoMt. gd:"!.O :Jlope tv 1~3,"'\ I r... lR3.17o _ 1h. s 'S /:)h.!f'f~ e;<.>:,ti,,) huuse I()a~ kcl ;(1 blvff . S tiN!j ,,,d,(CI ke{ (3L.vfF /.../I/JE .~~ [ SCALE .... - o 15 30 IN FEET I 120 60 90 T_ 'c 0 Denotes iron monument set, see note . Denotes icon monument f.ound .. Denotes board fence v (Y'1 i) Denotes eXlsting spot elevation D'JN~] Denotes proposed e lev.=! t. Lon '<1 ~ Denotes concrete slab ~ I f_ '" ',> ". NOTE " , \ \ .~ '- <r. , '#I ~ I~ .,1 :, ~, .k' i- ~: :~ :; I , - ,.. \ ,"', \ '-' I '..' \ - I 24' LONG IRON MONUMENT AND IDENTIFICATION DISC (ACTUAL Size) SET AT All POINTS INOlCATED. MINH REG. LAND SURVEYOR" 7095 .-::.~~-;. ~. ,at 98 I, ,ota. IS Juilding 19 project. ~d between the 'lich are not to i.n this survey J. ?J qO!>' \..-~~<(,. Ner and watermain > City of Prior Je been recorded .J. 6~fi. ~rt ,p:\ \O~ ~~ are contained ,arate sheet. > !" ~,,'. ~~ ~': .j' -- i" :tJ ~,~ '.k :1 " t .' I' l ~ (I'~S . '5/0fe.. Valley SurVeyirHt Co., P. A. SUITE /20-C, /6670 FRA1'IKLlN TRAIL FRANKLIN TRAIL OFFICE CONDOMINIUM PRIOR LAKE, MINNESOTA 55372 TELEPHONE (6/2) 447- 2570 i "5L/u ~ iZtd OqkS j7.d. 0.-100 V~ q~'l. 0 /1) "I'j).9 ;:; ,/'j. 'l'io - ih, ~ I ~ r~ k,1 tJ (' f ,SlJ'''''J I" lOlltc-H) j "e1. (" It-cr-ruP 0 F- (JL U pr: ()flv1.tJ' <;~1J~ ~LifYY1 , J:t=crl-D~ ~ Vo~t>V SURVEY PREPARED FOR' PINNACLE PARTNERSHIP 1.4093 COMMERCE AVENUE N.E. PRIOR.LAKE, MN. 55372 f6f-<j7-l/<.J~- PI. '!,.,'" LIZ Pr< r tNr'S W rn @ ~ U \iJ [g '~ i~1 AI 'Ii H:JYi prior '" '" LOKe ~ ...-, -1.. '- -' E\.. 901.5 4 I I I 97 .. o J .t::'<4r,r <<,.., , ,;1 m-:SCRIPTHlN: \ l.ot 22 IUm OAKS, proposed house \ NOms' Benchmark r"'.r"',l) CAll." Scott County, Minllellotn_ /11110 , \oc~t ion oC the I':levation 935.1J5 top of the existlng '1~"~gP. Ill"b nil lot ;>3. 935.6 " Denotes existing grade elevntion ( 939.0 ) Denot"s proposed finished 'lrad" eievations ---)- Denotell proposed directioll oC fil\iohed n\lrfnc"" dt-al,,,,,,,, Set the proposed garn'll! alab at elevation 941,07 Set the top block ",t elevatiQl 942.82 The lowest floor "levation will be 931. 79 '-.... '-J Net Lot /lr"", above e\. 904,0 ~ 7,374 sq. [to Net propo.'ged imp:lt"vious cQvet"ngf! :: 29.9. " o I SCALE 30 60 I REVISEO ,4/4/96 OECK TO BLUFF DIST. REVISED 4/2/97 TO SHOW IISE. RJPPED 6 GARAGE 6 CABIN REMOVED. REVISEO I nO/97 TO SIIOW TOPOF BAN<, TOE OF SLOPE 6 CABIN ON LOT 20 I htrtby cer"'y rha' 'hit turny wn, prfporrd by mt or under my dlrtrt ,upetvi,'on and ,,,,,, I ar" a du/~' /i(',nud Land Surve/"r under ,h, Jo~~Q/J'h' S"'~O~lnn'z..' 1----- /~/Ji?l _/::.C:;~/4....-:. //"/__. .l-'!l~r..r / 0." _/- I.d.- 'LL. LIcon" No, lOIOJ -....... ' IN FEET o O,nol.. 1/2 Inch )I: ''''nch Iron monumtrit n' ond mGrlctd by Ue.n... No. 10'03 . . Denotl! Iron manum,"' found IS O.no'" P. K. Nail .,., F/I.F 110 .612./L_ _ P.,,," Zl. __. PM" .l..'!___ J . SURVEY PREPARED FOR . PINNACLE PARTNERSHlpValley SurveYing Co., P.A. , SUITE IZO-C, /6670 FRANKLIII TRAIL 1.4198 COMMERCE AVENUEN.E. FRANKLIN TRAIL OFFICE CONDOMINIUM PR.IOR LAKE, MN. 55372 PRIOR LAKE, MINNESOTA 55372 TELEPHONE (612) 447 - 2570 I SLJVg ~d DC{ ks 17.:) (jP-ql-t-/'-IS '(.nh(( c (.... Pc<~s pr\or '" '" Lo\(e ~ r, -.1. l..- ~I EL. 90z.1 1 / ZZ / 96 ~ ! / If)',. .o~,. 001) o,Of/ < "'6.,.. .JC'o~ J < <q' 'p" fJlOliOf), ) ....I~ lJ ifi -'I I I OESeR! .'l'ION: \ Lot 22 RgD OM<0' proposed houne a3 \ Na1'I~ I Benchmat'k Scott County, Minnp.llota. MilO "tiJkP.d this 211d day of 'Ja,nua~y, location of thp. !Uevatioll 935.85 top of the existing qa~a'le "lab 011 lot ?:l. 93~,6 Denotes existing grade elevation ('939,0) Denote" propo.~ed flnlsh..d qrade elevations Denote" proposP.d direction of finished "urface drainaqe H " Set the proposed garage slob at elevation 939.19 Sel lop of block In qamoe 01 eleva'lon 939.52 Set the top block at Loakou, Elevallon 01 936,68 S@t fop of block of house ot elevation 942.67 The lo^,est floor el..vation will be '933,46 .......... "-J Net Lot ~r..a above ..1. 904,0 ~ 7,374 sq. ft, o I SCALE 30 ,60 __ I IN FEET REV, 9/17/97 TO SHOW TOP OF BLOCK ELEVATION OF HOUSE, REV 9/15/97 TO SHOW NEW PROPOSED GRAOES, REV: 9/10/97 TO SHOW NEW PROPOSED GRADES a RET. WA Ll. a DRAIN pER BLOR. I "~rtby crrtify 'hat rhi. Jurny WOJ prtporfti by mt or UNlttr m)' dlrte' 't.'P.rv;,;O" art(/ that 'o"lJ1 duly IIc.nnd Land Sl6'Vr'}'or undtr 'h. e;/J Ih. 51.,e:;:::n'201 _, _c:;<a~~./~ O~,!~q - C;.., ~;C,"U N~. IO''::~ '. o Oeno'" 1/2 Incli ./4/nch Iron monume"' ", and morho by Lic,nu No. 10lS 3 . 0''10'" iron momJrn,nf found $ 01"0'" P.f(. :ic1i1 Sf' c;1-- t./C/~ FILE No. 0"'28 800K ZI4 PAGE J? SURVEY PR EPARED FOR: McKNIGHT a ASSOC. 14093 COMMERCE AVENUE N.E. PRIOR LAKE, MN.55372 Valley Surveying Co., P.A. SUITE /20-C, 16670 FRANKLIN TRAIL FRANKLIN TRAIL OFFICE CONDOMINIUM PRIOR LAKE, MINNESOTA 55372 TELEPHONE (612) 447 - 2570 17-5"/3 / (; 0 33 .4JtJr-thwOdc.l ler! ..- - S87.St.!9"E ( _....- ..........__;....., 55 'pla,t\, <::: " .... -. 55.151 me,as .,... ~'2. . " ..., Z7.58m...:'~_27 s.m'7lf' ' . \~.. ............... ~\ \ (; :(-\ --55.001_ '" I 1__ _ 934 \ \ \ ""AIM '\ h',1 ( -----'\1 -;-"\ \ \ :: .:z~) .rd32...... I I \ \ ( ~,t;t ,,\ \1 \ \ z. \~ '; \ a,.,a. 0 ~ " \ ,,~~ \ \ Sl..A8 E\.. ~ i \ ~ 'I l. 9lS.99 ,,~~~ ' ~~\' ~ \ \ . g'~ \ \ r \ \ "-.J il., \ \,\~\\ \ \ \ / j I \\:-.,?-. \ \ \ I.." I '\1 \ \ \ \ . . '., '.~JI"~31H )-"3. I . \ \ \ \ \ \ , c'oNe..'fJ ", '~4". .of '- .....\SJ'..OAW. _ \ \ ',\ SL'AB - . l ,"sr.') ", \ _ ~!. -c;::::! Z;--T \~ I \, \ \ ~ ; i / ,., i' = ~ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ ~ ~ I :' - ....... i ~ 0.. ~ ~ \ \ \ \ \ \ } = ~ ~ ~ : '::~:ID 0 :) I'" OAI( l ,~ \ \ \ <; i<l 3 :ill ;; "\ dl '.. \ J /' \0 UJ E ..; IS.S ~~.~~ (; Ll.l 0 I \ '0 <t-::~,! ".~,.,." ~~:): : t) ( \ ( I " \, I~~ ..;' % ';:...!'- - ....::O;;.~,;-: :-!'1 Or . \', II .!: 8 al a) ~ ,.",,, .,;'.,.EN 2! \ \ : z ~:{l : b t"lL' , q :'bt J I \ / I ~ ' I . t' (Doti / / \ \ \ ~ ~...~:, " ~ .~- 7l~ / ( I I I I SH'D . ' 1 ~NOTE / I I / II \, ;;,.~ ...... ~.; '4' EXISTING CABIN TO BE REMOVED, " 7': ~ "', / I ~OTES :/ / / / / / \ Up -., .,. .I f I Net LOT AR'EA = 14,163 SO.FT '....,', OJ:. ~vf 01 NET/AREA/T<fE~EV.ATlON 904 15,347 "'1. ft. '''~ .. BM EL. 926,99 TOP GARAGE SLAB ON LOT 116 " / 926.3 /DEN6TE~ lXI'STlNG GRADE ELEVATION. , ' 92',0 \ .' . / . / / I I I \ '\. "\,' \ 'S". OJ'. 1 1 I (933.6) OENOTES PROPOSEO FINISHED GRADE ELEVATION, \ \ "\ "', ' \.. / 0',,' ..4-..;/ D~NOTE~ ,~ROPOSED DIRECTION OF SURFACE DRAINAGE \ \ \.~ " ....o~ 'z. 0 ./ / SET GARAGE SLAB AT ELEVATION 933.00 ': '" ~:.; 0". //SET/TOP' OF BLOCK AT ELEVATION 936.22 \ \, '- '.....' '" ../ ......1 /.~ .' SET BASEMENT FLOOR AT ELEVATION 927.27 .D~ '...~~ ,,_........ ,.......... ~< ....-..~ -" _/.....r ./' "Q't,"'. / ._./ /' / L::- 0........... \ ........ ..... _ u"", _ ./ ~ / ,0 .,0 ,/ I'_~""'''''''''''~' -- ....--,_.~ ~ - - -,--- ,," ",/ ..r--- ..J ,/ ~-:::. '~' -~~-~ '~ ~...:::=- -. -::: -::'-:::: /- ~.'. / / DECK ... ',::'::P'''~ __ --r-.~__..- ..\"- \/ .,/ x.-fo... 53.76- :;:- __ _ ___ __,,/' =, .t-;-l:::- -'1'18^ArA"!eO&,,= _, <.J-.l.Q, '.M. r... ." _- .-/ -'- VI-~ t.~~ "'-'~OO" ~"':. ~..JOUTH - --- -_ -.... ...0 '- " __--.J!r-~S..05::-.,OJf-.ol- ~ :----~~\~~ \ " ~, 'l'o-=-~__--'o._~ "'/5 00 --" ---- I'l": '. "- -~". &"''' -- '" ", _ ---.:' t'AI'T s"o,,_ " ~--r--- __........,., , Pt" Oor "l/N~ ___' "'-.... No. ~ ---.:.: -'. --0 SAN. M.H. te.ss . -904/ NORTH WOOD ROAD 025.20 024.82 . . \ tC.EL. T.C, EL. T.C. EL. \ ~ 02!~45 9Z!_,08 9Z4.7Z /2c (/i -5-e(/ Sun/, Con1z> V "'S i/V("'~ --- ,0 " /' "- I / EXISTING HouSE \ \ \ \ \ 0- I ~'-. I \ \ DESCRIPTION" LOT 117, NORTHWOOD, SCOTT COUNTY, MINNESOTA. ALSO SHOWING ALL VISIBLE IMPROVEMENTS AND ENCROACHMENTS ONTO OR OFF SAID PROPERTY IF ANY. \ PRIOR lAkE CL 902,4 7/ II / 97 o 30 60 , REV. '2/30/97 TO SHOW NEW LOCATION OF PROPOSED HOUSE. PER BLDR , REV. 12/101 97 TO SHOW NEW PROPOS E 0 HOU S E . REV. 10/21/97 To show 929.0 contour REV. 10/8/97 To show oddillonol elevation on fop of bank REV. 9/25/97 TO SHOW PROPOS EO HSE. ETC. / h~r~by certify that this surv.y was prepared by me or under my d;r~ct supervision and thot , om a duly 1iC'~~.~.od and S. urveyor under th. ~I>'h' S'?;:Ol'O, r::;//dA~...__ 00t.7-7 ~-:;;-c.,"""" Lie.nt. No. 10183 I SCALE IN FEET o a.nof" 1/2 Inch x 14 inch ;ro'1 monument ,.t and marhd by Lic.",. No. 10'93 . Deno',s iron monume"' found .. olnol..,. K. Nai' .., FILE No, 8526 SOOK 120 PME 71 ;:-.,,- q7 - )J .3 ;lVEY PR EPARED FOR: ,v1cKNIGHT 8 ASSOC. 114093 COMMERCE AVENUE N.E. PRIOR LAKE, MN. 55372 Valley Surveying CO., P. A. SUITE /20-C, 16670 FRANKLIN TRAIL FRANKLIN TRAil OFFICE CONDOMINIUM PRIOR LAKE I MINNESOTA 55372 TELEPHONE (612) 447-2570 / it; 033 /J/()~1i-1JdrrI12c/ ROAD On :irlCi/ SurV~ NORTH WOOD 025.20 , U4i8Z T.e. EL. 025,,45 r.C. EL. U5_, 00 T.e. EL. 9,z".TZ o III F,nC"l . ~ .{,..- ~-Z7.'......, -US.....'?'I '-; ~~, ~i J 9:/9 ~. 1.~...r~;- S87.51\19~;- ( 55 plo,t I 55.15 I1le\OS. 1 _ _ ...,. " ~'- \ (: \ - --5500__ \ \I8MA~ \ " \ \; \ , \ ~ ." OA RAG E St..A.B EL 926.99 \~ci\ .o! \ ~t1 \ \~"', iI.\ ~ jI1\' f \ "'~ I ~ /.e;~ .., , 933.6 t--.=j c'O ~~: ,rJ' ,'. ~ '..04 \, Z'.04" r.....J \ ~~'AB: ; \ O'~O"I( n .~fJ \ , - . ~' , ....'..'l'../ \ ~~ /rr;~:---,) ~ \ I ~;] -~; \~ ~I "41' "" 9"." \:1 1 " -.. _ 2'.0"1( " =~~.- ~Q 0"'0..1'!'- (; ~"3 g tl u_ al .... ~ ~ E I o[ , o;'JE o v c c.o - tUs ..!......cIOO, :;:~~ IV ~ a. ~ je L:TIr~'lPz::iiw- _f1) 0 c 0 (]) <Il I t'" 4 2~ ~ 0\011) ; 953 lIr-' ---.,- -~ ~ 0.1) := 1;; Z N N iii IlU 5 L_ I. III 0 3 ; ~ I ~:: ~~[O I'~ i ~ ~; ;-"",,'e.o~1 III I l.tJ SHEO-~ '-"L..:l~ ~I-:~ :...'1 '::J:,~" " I ~~iS~ING CABIN TO BE REMOVED. i I fl.. hI" 1!!,.1 10 i ~lOTE[l: :::!~! ';1 Net Lot ,u:ea = 14,163 I"lq. ft. ._.....!.-1~o,~ Net ilC"ea to ",levation 904.0 = 15,347 sq. ft. ',U4.11 I,. 9';6.3 Denot,,,, eltisting grade elevation 51.'41 _.11.1;.:, (933.6) DENOTES PROF'OSED FINISHED GRADE ELEVATION. "\) DENOTES PROroSED DIRECTION OF SURFACE DRAINAGE SET GARAGE SLAB AT ELEVATION 933.97 SET TOP OF BLOCK AT ELEVATION 934.30 SET BASEMENT FLOOR AT ELEVATION 925.40 DI~SCRIP'l'I()N : r...ot 117, Northwood, !"-ir:ott: COlmt}~, t1inn~sot.,. ^lno Showinq ,,11 IIblhl" impC"oll"mentn ilnd "ncro"chlllf'lntl"l onto or off !"laid pC"opP.C"ty if any. o o . / ~ ! EXISTING HOVS [ I ! 1:'- 11,.j " >-~ '-/ I -~ "-.jOECK ~ ;., ...-:rX .. ~ _.~} \ rr. o""'-Bonk"J rL : ,\ '~ ....p, .e.~ ~ ~ 'IS5fP10f I ... / \ .. 53 I !I; l.,- N80~~4"?OS~"_' FO, I.M. ...! !Jt. I~;" PO"w -' -- _-'OUTH ,...: ' . ____ - - 55.05 . '. ;\--~ t)~,,;--___ ____~~~~.oo $4" _----I~~~ $H01ftU"E ~ ---- --- ""_ .:..026.3- / ~I ). E,,,.,.,. PER 0 0<.". "0 OSAH,M.H. 'lIS&'5 PRIOR lAkE el 9024 7" / II / 97 :: o , 30 60 o DenotlS 1/2 inch .14 inch iron monument s.t and morked by lic."u No. 10183 . Denotlu iron monum."t found ~ Denote. P. K, Nail Yet REV, 9/25/97 TO SHOW PROPOSED HSE. ETC. , hereby certify that this surv.y was Prfpared by me or under my dir~t SlJJ)/Wv;s;on and that 10m. 0 duly 'i<~~~, .nd,. Surveyor under the /~'h' 5:, ;z::ro. .f:;;:/?d~"tL/L?z'<- -_. Dote 7_7C:.,6.~c.t--i Ue.nse No. 10183 SCALE IN FEET FilE: No, B526 BOOK 120 PAGE: 71