Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout9C - Certificate of Survey Requirements CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT MEETING DATE: AGENDA #: PREPARED BY: AGENDA ITEM: DISCUSSION: JUNE 15, 1998 9C JANE KANSIER, PLANNING COORDINATOR CONSIDER APPROVAL OF ORDINANCE 98-XX PERTAINING TO CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY REQUIREMENTS FOR BUILDING PERMITS Historv: In 1978, the Council approved Resolution 78-1 which required a certificate of survey be submitted as part of an application for all building permits. In 1995, the Council adopted Resolution 95- 64 which exempted replacement decks outside of the Shoreland or Flood Plain districts from the survey requirement. In 1997, the Council adopted Ordinance 97-15, which further clarified the need for surveys. This ordinance was an attempt to clarify when surveys are truly needed, and to employ means other than surveys when possible. The ordinance still requires a certificate of survey for all new construction. It also exempts all replacement decks :from the survey requirement. Finally, the ordinance allows some additions and new construction without a new certificate survey, subject to certain limitations, such as size of the structure, the location of property pins, and so on. On May 18, 1998, the City Council revisited this issue. The Council directed the staff to prepare an ordinance amendment which would allow the staff some discretion in waiving the survey requirements. A copy of the minutes of the May l8, 1998, City Council meeting are attached to this report for your information. Current Circumstances: Section 4-1-7 of the City Code lists the requirements for certificates of surveys as part of building permit applications. In summary, this provision requires surveys for all new construction. New certificates of surveys are not required for replacement decks or new decks, or additions or new construction less than 480 square feet outside ofthe Shoreland or Flood Plain Districts. The exception is subject to the following: 1. The existing survey must be signed by a registered land surveyor, and must depict the actual location of the existing structures on the lot. d:.\9&file$\98.0rda,md\city\28dlT&urveyc3.doc. . Page 1 162 U Eagle Creek Ave. ~.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER " 2. The City will require that property pins be located on the site so staff can verify the structure setbacks. 3. The addition and/or new structures must be drawn on the survey to scale. 4. The applicant must sign an agreement holding the City harmless :from any damages incurred ifthe building is placed inaccurately on the site. 5. The City may request a new certificate of survey be provided if, in the City's discretion, it is considered desirable under the following circumstances: a) The existing survey shows proposed structures rather than existing structures. b) The existing survey does not show all the structures on the property. c) The topography or other physical characteristics of the site are such that the City cannot reasonably verify the location of the existing and/or proposed structures, even though the property pins have been located. d) The existing survey does not identify the existing easements on . the site. e) A new certificate of survey is necessary to determine elevations on the site for the purpose of identifying drainage patterns, wetlands, bluffs, flood elevations, and/or ordinary high water elevations f) The City has reason to believe the conditions on the property may have changed since the date ofthe original survey. g) The City believes the proposed project may create aesthetic issues which require additional information. h) The City believes the proposed project may impact adjacent property values in such a manner that additional information is required. The City does not have a certificate of survey for every existing building in the City. In these cases, homeowners are required to obtain a new certificate of survey to construct a new deck. The cost of a survey can be $500.00 or more, adding significantly to the cost of building a deck. The purpose of this amendment is to give the staff the discretion to waive surveys when it does not appear to be necessary to ensure City Codes are met. The proposal allows the following: The Planning Director and Building Official may waive the survey requirement for decks provided: 1:\98files\98ordamd\city\98-072\surveyc3.doc Page 2 1. The deck must be drawn on a site plan to scale. The site plan must identify dimensions of both existing and new structures, and the distance from any lot lines. 2. The City will require that property pins be located on the site by the property owner so staff can verify the structure setbacks. The staffwill also review all available documentation to make a determination that the risk of violating City Codes is minimal. 3. The property owner must sign an agreement holding the City harmless from any damages incurred if the deck is placed inaccurately on the site. 4. The property owner shall pay a $50.00 fee for the staff review. The Issues: There are three issues in this change. The first issue involves the level of comfort in the information provided without a survey. The Council has already determined they are comfortable with allowing some new construction without a new survey. This amendment takes that one step further, and does not require a survey at all for decks. However, the amendment does require this to be reviewed on a site by site basis. There are instances in which staff would not be comfortable in allowing construction without a survey. Primarily, these will involve situations where the deck is on property with a bluff or near the ordinary high water elevation. The only way in which to make an accurate determination of a bluff or the ordinary high water elevation is with a survey. There are also situations where the location of the existing structures may be so close to the required setback that we cannot field verify the setbacks. These situations will also require a survey. The second issue is the increased time this will place on the issuance of permits. The site inspections will require additional staff time, and delay the review and granting of these permits, as well as of the other permit applications. The proposed $50.00 fee is intended to de:fray some of the staff costs involved in the review ofthese situations. However, we cannot be sure the fee is adequate to cover all ofthe costs.. Nor will the fee reduce the delay in granting permits. Finally, a third issue involves the hold harmless agreement. Some residents have expressed a concern about having to file the hold harmless at the County courthouse. We intend to modify the way in which the hold harmless is documented to streamline the process. Conclusion: It is possible to eliminate the need for surveys. Ifthe survey requirement is eliminated, it is important to remember there is more chance of an inaccurate placement of decks on the site, which may cause problems in the future. Furthermore, the provision may delay the issuance of permits due to the increased amount of staff time required in the review, research and inspection of each request. 1:\98files\98ordamd\city\98-072\surveyc3.doc Page 3 FISCAL IMPACT: ALTERNATIVES: RECOMMENDED MOTION: REVIEWED BY: Budpet Imoact: This proposed amendment has no immediate budget impact. If adopted, the proposed $50.00 fee will help to defray some ofthe cost involved in making each determination. The City Council has three alternatives: 1. Adopt Ordinance 98-XX approving the proposed amendment as requested. 2. Deny Ordinance 98-XX. 3. Defer this item and provide staffwith specific direction. A motion and second to adopt Ordinance 98- XX approving the proposed amendment. ~~ 1:\98files\98ordamd\city\98-072\surveyc3.doc Page 4 ... !'Ii...!!"...........~ ..1...... _~,lO;liioiri......- I: !,~ " ;::~ .r:.A-olftjJ '.,. I~~ ;;. " '~I ;;%PR~O COV,..t;,/'\~ ~~"'."""";"'-(' , ' ' 'jI' """'l ' ~ ~::~ CITY OF PRIOR LAKE ORDINANCE NO. 98-XX AN ORDINANCE ADDING SECTION 4-1-7 TO THE PRIOR LAKE CITY CODE The City Council of the City of Prior Lake does hereby ordain: Chapter 4 of the Prior Lake City Code is hereby amended to add Section 4-1-7 (E) as follows: 4-1-7 REQUIREMENTS FOR CERTIFICATES OF SURVEYS AS PART OF THE BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATIONS (E) The Planning Director and Building Official may waive the survey requirement for decks provided: 1. The deck must be drawn on a site plan to scale. The site plan must identify dimensions of both existing and new structures, and the distance from any lot lines. 2. The City will require that property pins be located on the site so staff can verify the structure setbacks. The staff will also review all available documentation to make a determination that the risk of violating City Codes is minimal. 3. The property owner must sign an agreement holding the City harmless from any damages incurred if the deck is placed inaccurately on the site. 4. The property owner shall pay a $50.00 fee for the staff review. This ordinance shall become effective from and after its passage and publication. Passed by the City Council of the City of Prior Lake this 15th day of June, 1998. ATTEST: City Manager Mayor Published in the Prior Lake American on the 20th day of June, 1998. Drafted By: City of Prior Lake Planning Department 16200 Eagle Creek Avenue Prior Lake, MN 55372 1:\9.8files\98prdamd\cit~8-.Qn\ord9&xx.doc. e..~g~ I 16200 Eagle CreeK Ave. ::':1::., Pnor Lake, Mmnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (61~) Q.47-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER MINUTES OF 5/18/98 CITY COUNCIL MEETING exceed the number approved by the Metropolitan Council. He asked if this would change with re development. · City Attorne rokl said the number of hook-ups was a reques deletion that Was not made. The 80 un requirement by the Metropolitan Council sta In the agreement. . City Engineer Ilkka said ordinances. Mayor Mader asked ab main bread repairs? of facility in section 17.5, what is . · City Engineer Ilkka said it is a t . Shouldn't they be required to foIl ibit D are copies of our existing · City Manager Bo es said page 8 refers to exhibit D and 1 udes verbiage regarding es and compliance with future ordinance changes. te, ayes by Mader, Kedrowski, Petersen, Schenck, and Wu er, the motion ~ B. Consider Approval of Report Regarding Survey Requirements for Decks. · City Manager Boyles introduced the item. The City's ordinance provides that a survey be required when building a deck. Surveys show the location of structures in a property and contain relevant data for approval. Surveys cost $500 - $1,500, adding by one third to twice the cost of building a deck. Mr. Paul Scheuneman is a resident who wishes to put up a deck in the middle of the back of his house. There are clearly no problems with setbacks. The report seeks to obtain permission that, under certain conditions, the City could accept a sketch plan in lieu of a survey. It would protect the City and provide the property owner with a reasonable cost. · Mayor Mader said he saw the sketch of Mr. Scheunemann's properties. His deck is centered in the middle of the house. The clearance from the deck to the property lines does not present setback infringement. MOTION BY MADER SECOND BY PETERSEN TO HAVE STAFF WRITE AN ORDINANCE CHANGE ALLOWING FOR WAIVER OF SURVEY REQUIREMENTS FOR DECKS IF 1 ) STAFF VISITS THE SITE AND REVIEWS THE DOCUMENTS TO ENSURE THERE IS MINIMUM RISK TO THE CITY AND IT COMPLIES WITH ZONING ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS, 2) THE PROPERTY OWNER PROVIDES A SKETCH AND LETTER OF INDEMNIFICATION AND 3) A HANDLING FEE IS PAID. . Councilmember Kedrowski asked if the letter of indemnification would provide that the City could remove the deck if necessary. S1898.DOC 4 . "'fl', 'i!!' "'.--- ---"Ii~~~ ,,"-'!f .. '_~~"i!l'~ 'iii ,"',,:r_;l. Ii' '.t~. -.' r~. . S1898.DOC . City Attorney Brokl said it indicates the owner agrees upon demand by the City to take necessary steps for compliance. . Planning Director Rye said the City currently requires hold harmless agreements with Building Permits. . Mayor Mader said it could include if the structure infringes on setback requirements it will be removed. . City Attorney Brokl said that would be covered. . Councilmember Kedrowski asked whether this would include the Shoreland Management District? . Councilmember Wuellner said yes. . Councilmember Kedrowski said the Council has had many discussions on setbacks in the Shoreland District. . Mayor Mader said in the resolution it said the requirements would have to be waived by the City Manager and based upon staff review, indicate a low risk. This particular property is in the Shoreland District but not near the water. . Councilmember Kedrowski said he would support the resolution. . Councilmember Wuellner asked whether this was specific to properties in the Shoreland? . Mayor Mader said it was for any property. . Councilmember Wuellner said the Shoreland has more conservative requirements as far as impervious surface. If it is Shoreland property, the most important consideration is the setback from the lake. Possibly a surveyor could come out and determine where the 904 mark is and the property owner could measure from there. . City Manager Boyles read the provisions ofthe ordinance. . Councilmember Wuellner said instead of strict survey requirements, staff could investigate the possibility of surveying for the 904 mark. . Mayor Mader said after 904 is established would someone then verify the setback? . Councilmember Wuellner said it could be done by the property owner. That is the most important setback. . Councilmember Petersen said the staff could figure out 904 by checking the lake level and measuring back up the property to 904. 5 ", . Planning Director Rye said that would reintroduce the judgment call for someone to go out and establish 904. It may be difficult with sloping lots. - . Mayor Mader said if it was a sloped lot he would assume the City Manager would not waive the survey. With Mr. Scheuneman's deck there would be no possibility of infringing on another property. Upon a vote, ayes by Mader, Kedrowski, Petersen, Schenck and Wuellner, the motion carried. 9. (8) PUBLIC HEARINGS: Continuation of Board of Review Meeting. ~ City' ~ager Boyles introduced the item. County Assessor Leroy addres l1g the six properties reviewed. Two of them had values . ch were adjusted. The other fo "Properties' valuations remained the same. Council an affirm or recommend modificati 6Qhe report. " MOTION B \~'R ROWSKI SECOND BY SCHENC 0 APPROVE THE COUNTY ASSESSOR'S ilia T. " Upon a vote ayes b~ der, Kedrowski, Peters , Schenck and Wuellner, the motion carried. , ",~ " B. (9) OLD BUSINESS Con 'der A roval of Bids to Dispose of Surplus Fire Equipment. ~ '\, . . City Manager Boyles introduced t " . it~ . The Kelley blue book trade-in value for the Crown Victoria is $815. The .bi~)S $800,:" ere currently is. a. sUll?lus of pumper tru~ks around the state. They are bemgiused to "p, - out" or are sIttmg m lots. The CouncIl's options are to accept the bi;s'~ authorize a>'~ id, or donate the equipment to another department. / "'" J " j\, MOTION BY KEDROWSKI SECOND BY SC~ K TO CONSIDER DONATING THE TWO TRUCKS TO ANOTHER FIRE DEPART \ IN SCOTT COUNTY. I )' l ',,- Fire Department Rypresentative and Public Works Supervis '~artman said a member of the New Market FirrDepartment submitted a bid for each truc '. e wanted to purchase the trucks with his .pWn funds and donate it to the department. ' " , ' / ' Councilmember Schenck said donation of these trucks will save a life a structure. ./' /' Councilriiember Kedrowski said that the and require paym~nt next year. ,,. ! Put5iic Works Supervisor Hartman said he was concerned about the Council not accepting the high bid by donating the trucks and then requiring payment later. . . . . S1898,DQC 6 __ " lIiIl". t'.III:":.tt,..,~, ~ .'. L'.................."~.... l;.. . ,'..... '. <_ /:,.:'i..;cll'I!~~' 4..;.;; t.':. ..'" 'II'