Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout9D - Engineering Certificate Requirements MEETING DATE: AGENDA #: PREPARED BY: AGENDA ITEM: DISCUSSION: CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT JUNE 15, 1998 9D JANE KANSIER, PLANNING COORDINATOR CONSIDER APPROVAL OF ORDINANCE 98-XX APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE RELATING TO THE ENGINEERING CERTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS FOR BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATIONS ON PROPERTIES DETERMINED TO HAVE A BLUFF Historv: In January, 1998, the City Council adopted Ordinance #98- 01, which established the bluff setback requirements and established the requirement for engineering certification that any excavation, fill or . placement of a structure on a property determined to have a bluffwill not cause any slope to become unstable, and will not interfere with adequate drainage for the site or adjacent properties, will not obstruct, damage, or adversely affect existing sewer and drainage facilities, stormwater runoff, downstream properties, wetlands, or bodies of water, or will not result in erosion or sedimentation before any building permit is issued on a lot considered to have a bluff. On April 20, 1998, the City Council revisited this issue. The primary concerns related to the potential cost of the required engineering study, the willingness of engineers to certify the studies, the need for the studies for minor additions, decks or garages, and the ability of property owners to reasonably comply with the ordinance. After much discussion, the Council determined the potential cost of the study is not unreasonable. The Council did decide the issues ofthe willingness of the engineers to certify the reports and the need for a study for minor additions, decks and garages should be referred back to the Planning Commission for further study. On May 26, 1998, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing to review language clarifying the intent of the certification requirements. The Commission also reviewed the issue of the actual need for certification in all cases. A copy ofthe minutes ofthe Planning Commission meeting are attached to this report. Current Circumstances: In discussing this issue with several engineers, it appears that some are reluctant to certify that the slope will not fail. This is basically due to the fact there are several factors 1:\98Jile,s\98ordamd\zoniqg\98-006\98006cc.doc Page 1 16200 Eagle Creek Ave. ~~E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER over which the engineer has no control, such as what occurs after the structure has been built. Most engineers are willing to sign a report with recommendations for construction which should be adhered to for each particular propex:ty on a bluff. It was never intended that the engineer should be held responsible for conditions which occurred after the site development. The purpose of the certification is to identify any potential problems on the site, such as soil conditions or structural loads. The preparation of a report which identifies these conditions and outlines specific recommendations will achieve this purpose. The proposed amendment clarifies this intent. Another issue is the actual need for an engineer's study in all situations, especially for minor additions, decks or garages. The staff and the Planning Commission agree it may be unreasonable to require this report in some instances; however, each property is unique. To that end, the Planning Commission and the staff recommend language which allows the Building Official, Planning Director and City Engineer to waive the engineering study for replacement decks, new decks or additions to existing decks, and additions or new structures not exceeding 480 square feet under all ofthe following conditions: . An inspection of the site does not indicate any obvious erosion problems or conditions. . There is no history of bluff failure on the site, or on the adjacent lots. . All required setbacks are met. . The property owner records a bluff indemnification agreement and a declaration of covenants. This language allows some flexibility in the report requirements, but also allows the staff to require such a report in cases where the bluff stability is questionable. The Issues: The issues here are the concerns of engineers relating to the certification and the need for certification in all instances. The proposed language clarifies the intent ofthis ordinance. This language requires an engineer to prepare a report which will outline site conditions and make recommendations for the development of the site. The amendment then requires certification that the site has been developed according to the recommendations. The amendment also allows for some discretion in when a report is required. This discretion is based on observable factors, and will be applied on a site- by-site basis. Conclusion: The Planning Commission concluded the proposed amendments clarified the intent of the ordinance and allowed for some staff discretion. The Planning Commission therefore recommended 1:\98files\98ordamd\zoning\98-006\98006cc.doc Page 2 +....L _~_..Pl!,",!!, ",..,. 'j~l ~ ..," '!'!f""l'- ...-....~ - '''''. '!~.)"lIIIfR'fo:!llq~1~1'ROW!I'~ ~W'" ~'" ... ",," the Zoning Ordinance be amended as follows (new language is shown in bold italics): 3. Bluff Impact Zones, Bluff Setbacks and Engineering Report Required Structures and accessory facilities, except stairways and landings, shall not be placed in bluff impact zones. Bluff setbacks: 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%. On properties determined to have a bluff, the applicant for a building permit on that property shall provide engineering eertifieation to the Gity a report prepared and signed by a registered professional engineer registered by the State of Minnesota that no on the impact any excavation, fill or placement of structures will have on the site and whether the excavation, fill or placement of structures will cause any slope to become unstable or will impose loads that may affect the safety of structures or slopes. The engineer report shall also eertify that . include the engineer's recommendations so the site development will not interfere with adequate drainage for the site or adjacent properties, will not obstruct, damage or adversely affect existing sewer or drainage facilities, will not adversely affect the quality of stormwater runoff, will not adversely affect downstream properties, wetlands or bodies of water and will not result in erosion or sedimentation. The owner of the property shall provide certification :from a registered professional engineer registered by the State of Minnesota that the final grading ofthe site was completed in compliance with an approved grading plan and that the recommendations contained in the engineer's report have been adhered to. The property owner shall~" ~j record a bluff indemnification agreement and a declaration of covenants conditions a::d restrietions in a form acceptable to the City Attorney which provides for owner maintenance of all meffiifaetlH'ed slope areas, acceptance of all risks and liability associated with those areas and indemnification of the City from all associated claims. The Building Official, the Planning Director and the City Engineer may waive the engineer's report requirement for replacement decks, new decks or additions to existing decks, and additions or new structures not exceeding 480 square feet in size under all of the following conditions: 1. A inspection of the site does not indicate any obvious erosion conditions. 1:\98files\98ordamd\zoning\98-006\98006cc.doc Page 3 FISCAL IMPACT: ALTERNATIVES: RECOMMENDED MOTION: REVIEWED BY: 2. There is no history of bluff failure on the site or on the adjacent lots. 3. All required setbacks are met. 4. The propectY owner records a bluff indemnification agreement and a declaration of covenants. Bud!!et Imnact: This proposed amendment has no immediate budget impact. The City Council has three alternatives: 1. Adopt Ordinance 98-XX approving the proposed a.mendment as requested. 2. Deny Ordinance 98-XX. 3. Defer this item and provide staff with specific direction. A motion and second to adopt Ordinance 98-XX approving the proposed amendment to the Zoning Ordinance. Approval of this ordinance requires a 4/5 vote of the Council. 1:\98files\98ordamd\zoning\98-006\98006cc.doc Page 4 . ..' a. II' !La "1IIlIi JIll "ci. ..,_.-:m:'r.:;"'II!!':"'''''"'~___ lIt::r; :. ,Ii j!1:~:::~- --!I:&, _!t; I.1l:. . CITY OF PRIOR LAKE ORDINANCE NO. 98- XX AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 5-8-3 (A,3) OF THE PRIOR LAKE CITY CODE AND AMENDING SECTION 9.3 (A;3) OF THE PRIOR LAKE ZONING ORDINANCE 83-6. The City Council ofthe City of Prior Lake does hereby ordain: Section 5-8-3A.3 and 9.3A.3 are amended to read as follows: 3. Bluff Impact Zones, Bluff Setbacks and Engineering ReDort Required Structures and accessory facilities, except stairways and landings, shall not be placed in bluff impact zones. Bluff setbacks: 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%. On properties determined to have a bluff, the applicant for a building permit on that property shall provide eftgffiee::::;; aertifieatieR te the City a reoort oreoared and siflned by a registered professional engineer reflistered bv the State of Minnesota ~ fte on the imoact anv excavation, fill or placement of structures will have on the site and whether the excavation, fill or olacement of structures will cause any slope to become unstable or will impose loads that may affect the safety of structures or slopes. The engiReer reoort shall also certify that include the enflineer's recommendations so the site development will not interfere with adequate drainage for the site or adjacent properties, will not obstruct, damage or adversely affect existing sewer or drainage facilities, will not adversely affect the quality of stormwater runoff, will not adversely affect downstream properties, wetlands or bodies of water and will not result in erosion or sedimentation. The owner of the property shall provide certification from a registerea professional engineer reflistered bv the State of Minnesota that the final grading of the site was completed in compliance with an approved grading plan and that the recommendations contained in the enflineer's reDort have been adhered to. The property owner shall pre13ere aRa record a bluff indemnification af!1'eement and a declaration of covenants eeftdfl:~on" ilRe1 restnetieRs in a form acceptable to the City Attorney which provides for owner maintenance of all ffiaftl:lfae?.ir:::l slope areas, acceptance of all risks and liability associated with those areas and indemnification of the City from all associated claims. 16200 EalQlmQ:~&.ifg\9P-<<Jtmroldak.e,.dMinnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (6I:e~~47-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER The Buildinr! Official. the Planninr! Director and the Citv Enr!ineer mav waive the enr!ineer's reDort reouirement for reDlacement decks. new decks or additions to existinr! decks. and additions or new structures not exceedinr! 480 souare feet in size under all of the followin{T conditions: 1. A insDection of the site does not indicate anv obvious erosion conditions. 2. There is no historv of bluff failure on the site or on the adiacent lots. 3. All reouired setbacks are met. 4. The DrOlJertv owner records a bluff indemnification atzreement and a declaration of covenants. 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 I :\98files\98ordamd\zoning\98-006\ord98xx.doc Page 2 '." ~. . -.. ".~1 _dIlIl'l . ,.'~' IlII ... ~~'..._"'- '" '" . ,r I' ~',,'. <li'~"." "'_,.. ....' """. "'" .,iI-". MINUTES OF 5/26/98 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING neighbors would be at the eting. Mr. Vidmar said he tried to work with the City in building a small house. Whe the building official approved the doors on the second floor, the assumption was for a ck. Criego: . Going back to notes of March 25, and lake setbacks. . Mr. Vidmar said he has a 3 car garage. ed his comments regarding the front ..::::~@~~~~t~~~j~11m~~:~::::::;: ..:.:.:.:.:.:.... .....:.:.:.. ,,:.:.:.:.:.' " MOTION BY CRAMER, SECO OF, TO APPRqy;i::dl~1kYTION 98- 14PC DENYING A 9 FOOT V ANCE TO RMIT A 41 Fq@T sEmit;J{ FROM THE ORDINARY HIGH W ER MARK OF P R LAICe.m~$.W:EAD op:::wlJ.;:" REQumED 50 Faa::. by ~~::~~o: ::,{~ ~ Tovar explai the appeal process. ..::::::::t::::::::r::(:::" ":::;=::;:;:;::=:::::" ":::::;:;::::=;:::;::" C. Case #98-048 Consider Amendl!!!!.t4:9..,City Code a~d::lempg Ordinance relating to the engineering certification\lqqim~:p..ts for buil41.ig' permit applications on properties determined t&~i~:V~:::::.::~Jfi,_:::i:::ii:I:::::::::::r::/:::' ':::Of:" Planning Coordinator Jane I<.:W!m~Rp.resented''tn~::Planning::f{~port dated May 26, 1998 on file in the office ofthe..::~:~1fig'::f:j':tor. '\::::llil:::::::::::::::::\::. In January, 1998, t~:~Nm~tx, Counc~.k~dopted Ordi9.iH6e #98-01, which established the bluff setback requirements. "'t:q!H?rd:i~!]~J,'B::!~~~9.11shed a requirement for engineering certification that any excav.IiU6n~ filfor':placement of a structure on a property determined to have a blqff::::wHl:upt cau~g:::'y::~lope to become unstable, and will not interfere with adequat~:JJ,tMHag~rrqr::l1w site oH\ij~9ght properties, will not obstruct, damage, or adve~:~~l~raffect exisHn&::~wer an~::'ainage facilities, stormwater runoff, downstream prgpit#es, wetlands, or"lil,igies of'Water, or will not result in erosion or sedimentation. T1ir;:::~l.:~kipeering certific~i9n is required before any building permit will be issued on a lot con~t'1~j:~:to have ~i~~,ff. On April 2'~:::::III~:~Ju.~:::~~ty Council revisited this issue. The primary concerns related to the potential co's1:::gfl"he required engineering study, the willingness of engineers to certify the studies, therteed for the studies for minor additions, decks or garages, and the ability of property owners to reasonably comply with the ordinance. After much discussion, as outlined in the minutes of the Council meeting, the Council determined the potential cost ofthe study is not unreasonable. The Council did decide the issues of the willingness of the engineers to certify the reports and the need for a study for minor additions, decks and garages should be referred back to the Planning Commission for further study. In discussing this issue with several engineers, it appears some are reluctant to certify the slope will not fail. This is basically due to the fact there are several factors over which 1:\98fi1es\98plcomm\pcmin\mn052698.doc 6 the engineer has no control, such as what occurs after the structure has been built. Most engineers are willing to sign a report with recommendations for construction which should be adhered to for each particular property on a bluff. It was never intended the engineer should be held responsible for conditions which occurred after the site development. The purpose of the certification is to identify any potential problems on the site, such as soil conditions or structural loads. ':tb~tP'.~eparation of a report which identifies these conditions and outlines specific recommlHa'M'iHhs will achieve this purpose. The staff is proposing the ordinance language 9P,;::iWended to state the following (new language is shown in bold italiCS):i~::::!:iii:I::i:::)::::""'::::::~~:::::i!i!llllllllii:::t"". On properties determined to have a bluff, the applicant.Jor...at6.uilding p'g~:lit on that property shall provide e::~:neeriRg eertifie~!fiit:i~tl~g:: ~ a re;'j~:::tt:::::::::i)' prepared and signed by a registered profession~l::plgine~r:..registered by thlt:::I:::::)f:" State of Minnesota that no on the impact an.K~#'i9..avatiorlf:i!1 or placement::::::::::" of structures will have on the site and wtiJifl~jt:t!'edali.fMtion, fill or placement of structures will cause any slope to":::b.~S~~ un:~l~ble or will impose loads that may affect the safety of structures dKi!~u~es. The ongiReer report shall also eortify that incl~4~t!!Jl!. engineer's rl8i!Ji!mJ!pdations so the site development will not intert~f:W.::wttll:::!4.~quate drainagi~~Wor the site or adjacent properties, will not obstruC't.dairia!fJi:jt;;:;!qyer~.~15f'affect existing sewer or drainage facilities, will Ii! .!l.qversgl}(:::::iitttt the quality of stormwater runoff, ~Ukt::n.Qt advers~lW/:::"affect 49~stream properties, wetlands or bodies QfwateF:jiia will not"f.isult in erosion or sedimentation. The owner o~t:oPertJall provi~fication from a registered professional'ehgi~it.r.. thl!M:;I:'~tf.mtl::::g[.Hg of the site was completed in compliance with art\$,Pl!f.6ved....graalhg:::plan and that the recommendations contai"lHliJ)....fhe engifl'("(t}s report have been adhered to. Anothef:;:i~~~:m~;::;;~~:::ill'~unee~:~~'J;iiii::::~gineer's study in all situations, especially for m4.W~:::~dditions, decks..:g~i:i~agesJf:The staff agrees it may be unreasonable to require this repH~::~jt:~ome instances;li~wever, each property is unique. To that end, the staff is propo~fiji::}W1guage whic4iihllows the Building Official, Planning Director and City Engineer'::f&,iiw,!!ve the .i,~neering study for replacement decks, new decks or additions to existing deck~~Jmd additions or new structures not exceeding 480 square feet under all of the following ca'IJt1'6ns: .:{f::::" . An inspection ofthe site does not indicate any obvious erosion problems or conditions. . There is no history of bluff failure on the site. . All required setbacks are met. . The property owner records a bluff indemnification agreement and a declaration of covenants. 1:\98files\98plcomm\pcmin\mnOS2698.doc 7 ::: 'T'1'%~~~,:,~[iil'[; .: "_ tt j :: E _.il. . "-;~':":r"'-"':,::~~~ ~ ~.pt 'li\ 'n:r:'r<ll.'~o.:l!."'~::':i.:::.:... 1:.':::. ..:. _ This language allows some flexibility in the report requirements, but also allows the staff to require such a report iii cases where the bluff stability is questionable. Staff feels the proposed language accomplishes the purpose of original ordinance, while allowing some flexibility. Their recommendation to City Council is to approve the proposed amendment or with changes specified by the Planning Commission. .........;... ::~g::ns by the commUsionen:AA:~ What would happen ifthe applicant would disagree with staffs iljew o{fi~.~ the inspection done by an engineer? How would they appeal? I).i.n$.i.~:::~aid it wdUUl:be the ::::~~PealProcess, r ~ Engineering okay with certification on the grading!t::::Kan$j~r saiq?t1~~". If an addition to the house is approved by staff, does that'fiyb,I:::the i~~t paragraph, the property owner basically indemnity the City when then makJ::~~~:iig~dition? Kansier said "Yes" '::::::ff::::::f??:::::::.:... ":::<:::::::I:i::i:ii:::::::J}:: V onhof: '::i:::::iii::..::..:::::/::::::::::::::::::::::!:ii::i:::::::::::ii}:t::::::::.:... .'. .::{/::.. Questioned the language with professional e'-g.in~~f.::::" KMi~!it::~~id it should be the same. Regarding the criteria on pag~::::a~VU?.history oJt/btiilffailure::ipW' the site, what about the adjacent property? Vonhqf:i~t'~:~~~~~;;~lded to e';1nd and include the 2 adjacent lots with a history of lot faiIXl"m.)t Comments from tile public. ...............................................w..................:.:.. ..::::~~11~1~~~~~~~~~1~;:::;::t11jr:~:~:~:~~~~~~r::::::::::::::;~:;:;;;;;;;;;;~j~1~1~~~~~~~~~~~~1~r~:::::.. Win Simons9.~:::A9.::Q.~7 Nortl{q,9:9. Road, said he is applying for a building permit to add on 4 feetJg:i:tiis:i:&Hi.ip'&,Jieck. Tn,i:::w;wp.ance passed in January was great but was over done fgj::ishuations lil~~::n~~:, He sa~~::ne likes the new wording with common sense in the 0.~~~1~:: for minor add'l~rs.::i/::" Jim Al~mtJ6043 No~I:;od Road, wanted to commend staff for attempting to clarify what he s:ii:;:;:~ some prdblems in the ordinance. The City Council acted in haste when they passed:'th!:::Rf,1~n@tg~. This ordinance was taken primarily from Minnetonka's ordinance (hana'::::pU"t ordinance to Commissioners). A lot of the verbiage came :from that ordinance.::~is point was it allowed building on the slope, not with the setback. Mr. Albers went on to say a while ago he objected to staffs interpretation ofa bluff and then dropped it for a variety of reasons. This ordinance addresses a lot of the issues for people who want to do minor changes. Marv Mirsch, 15432 Red Oaks (seasonal address), 2260 Sargent, St. Paul, would really like the Commissioners to stop and consider what they have in this ordinance. He has 35 years experience working in the defense industry and knows what a safety factor is. He feels there are three redundancies, first is based on the DNR. The 18% slope cannot be for 1:\98fi1es\98plcomrn\pcmin\mnOS2698.doc 8 safety because the City allows a 30% slope for berms. Mr. Mirsch gave his interpretation ofBret Anderson's (a geotechnical and civil engineer with STS Consultants) interpretation of what the ordinance should be. The second redundancy is the engineering requirement. The third is the indemnification ofthe City. Mr. Mirsch feels this is beyond fail-safe. He can understand an engineering report so let him build on a bluff. There are too many requirements in the 9.. ,,' ,ance and it keeps coming back and coming back. Why not sit down and figure 01Y::)i{-'" ;~hbuld be done? His neighbor's house is fairly large but he does not worry that..:it:~i::.going to fall down. Mirsch said the City is creating an impossible situation an.:(Uti:;C:~;Ml build his :::::sh::~: :::sioners: /! ~ .. ,. ............. l~1~~t~1ijt::.. Cramer: .:::::::::::::::t::::::::::iililillllllllllii::::t::::::::::i:I:f::::::::::::::::\}::, . This is the first I have seen of the City Council's proposii,::::tn.1e new ordinance significantly allows more use ofthe Iaktshore land than wRilIthe,,previous ordinance did. This clarifies what the Council ~ii}l6~i~t:'-a.dier. It has bl,~H::;~viewed by :~~:~~~~~~~~~rding to the Council M"it~';:::::'~:::_~:it:;:0~ ':~~id in general this is a . Recommend Council apP[QY~Mh~ amenchR~tit:::to the ordih~ce. Stamson: ..::::/:ii::::::::::::::::::::r:::::::::::::::::::::::::r,IIII;"111: \::::.!III::::t:::::::::::::=' . Do we need an ~.'~ering stv,4Y: on all case~t::rff the bluff is just marginal, if it just . ~::::ss~~t,~~,~~II!:;::;;~,.li:::!~::~~::~=~::~:5 feet, do we need a study? V onhof::::::::t:::i:tr::::::::t::::::~:;~;:i::::;::::ift::::::.. ..:::::t:::;iiIIIIIIIII11ii!:!!t::::::::::::::::r:' . ':Y!::h~~e discuss;~:::ll~: a lot. .:J:g=; Lake has a number of vacant properties and open ..::::JMi4s that have signlf.Ii~t bhitfs on it. It is a big issue. .::::r:::':fl;:!:~~s never consiiled until recently. It was not an issue brought before the COI_~s.ioners. ,/ifJ::' . It is itri~~~!p.t th~::::@.ny have an ordinance to protect the bluffs. We do have a ~esponsibm'::~gii~hake sur~ the houses are not falling off the ~luff or causing. erosion mto the lake :Ot'just damagmg a bluff. There are other bluffs m the commumty. . Previous di~~~ssions have been with engineering reports. . With any new ordinance it might come back for fine tuning. . Agreed with language changes recommended by staff. . The Commissioners will review this annually with applications coming before us. Criego: . The verbiage is fine. It does what it is suppose to do. 1:\98files\98plcomm\pcmin\mn052698.doc 9 . '.,e ft!, .. - &~I". ~'.. :.Ii . . __'_I.""!'!I'l!~. it ',P ". r"', ,;lilll-"-"-l.1 116 Yfj" It.!: . .. . . There are deeper problems. This ordinance is hard to explain. We owe it to ourselves and the public and see if it can be put in terms everyone can understand. And further, is that what we really want to do? . The city engineers should explain to us again. . I can not answer all the questions. . The request for change was established based on a need. Kansier explained the City Council heard from residents and came back with these two issues. "::;:;:;:::;:::;:;:;:;:;:;:::;::;:'" . In full support of the ordinance because it eases it. But in conjunct~9.6AViih:.:tliat there should .be. something in pla~e to have the engineering departme~l:ll.ql::~:~~ng Stamson: . . . Is the intent to put this in the proposed ordinance beidg~~:I~i~wed by the Council? :~ :~dn~~S ~~:ma:~~dment to the::il:i:~~~:::~..ordinance~~:"1iii~~:~:l:::be incorporated . Are we reviewing what Council is revl~Wlng"t::tf.fw~mld mak~:::~ehse to make sure that :ta:::!~~:~~:7~mmce'~ilmguagemll he . We should not Mi~:::what w~~;~~::dQne.,..The.j:pianning Commission and City Council considered this ~ 10C:{1Jh.i~:Ji~:~th~:::Wiy.::lb:::I$F:::" . We shoul~.~.~t~.h it c~J~lM~:::!O make sure it does not go into a direction that we did ~Si~theYwmttogo, . Tlig:::QAUIlCil does nodihderstand the ordinance. This has been brought up a number V o::~:V it is explained or the interpretation is not understood, . Maybe ther~jMhould be a 30 minute presentation by staff. The difficulty in writing the ordinance is to cover everything. This is an area we have not covered before. Work with what we have and go from there. See how it affects the cases. Tovar said there are two different issues. One is the current ordinance and the interpretation of that. The city staff can decide where the house goes but the concern is the safety factor, slopes, soils and weight. The soils vary from lot to lot. We brought this to the Council because they had the same questions the Planning Commission did. 1:\98files\98plcomm\pcmin\nm052698.doc 10 'i' Cramer: · Has concern if it is just introduced to the Planning Commission. . Include diagrams within the ordinance itself so it is clearly understood. . Kansier said the diagrams are in the ordinance. V onhof: . The soils speaker should be videotaped and available for viewing by tq~::mmljc and future commissioners. ..:~:~~iir::;::::':":':':':':::::::::f: MOTION BY CRIEGO, SECOND BY VONHOF, TO ACCEPT:.::,tr.i~ii:'h,p.OSED AMENDMENTS AS STAFF RECOMMENDED WITH THE CIf.iNGE 'O'~::it~::::.. PARAGRAPH 2, "THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY Sij~.~:::PROVID~lil:~:~::it~::::.. CERTIFICATION FROM A PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER:1tATHER THAN AtIIt:::::::::;::::::::=:. REGISTERED ENGINEER." AND ....::.::.::.i..:::.i:..~!.:ii.li.i!.:"..:.r::::.. ..:t~~~~~::::.. .::;;:llllii::::::r::::" :::::::::::::::::" MODIFY MOTION BY CREIGO, SECOND BY fO'mOF, THkii:::a.tIE CRITERIA BE CHANGED FROM "THERE IS NO HISTORY OF ~il~~r F AlLURE ON THE "<.~::::::::::::::::.. SITE" TO "THERE IS NO mSTORY OF.BLUFF F AlLURfi{QN. THE SITE AND THE ::::~::::'ayeSbY~l. MOTIO~ vy MOTION BY CRIEGO TO .klAMlii;:PLA.NN!NS:;:ST AFF .AND ENGINEERING STAFF REVIEW THE ORDINANeE:::W:f:~t;iTHE PLANNING COMMISSION, WITH SEVERAL EXAMPLES:i:!.fo INSUIE IT'S uNliERsTANDING AND IF THAT IS WHAT WE W ANT::n1ii:l;HE FUTURE TO BE HEED IN THE NEXT MONTH. '::;;1::::"" '. ":;~~@1~I~~~~~::::::.... . .::::~~~~~~~~~~~~~~1~~iiji;~~~~~~~~~~i~~~i;;;i1~~1~1~1m;~~~t~~m~~~Jj~j1j~~::::" Rye said staff would not b~t~:1~:'t~..~.~tit"tp:::wttinn the next two meetings because of study sessiqni~;:R!t:U1~t~oning'"(5t,iiA~ce with City Council. Mr. Anderson's schedule would ~:~y~Hg:b'~:;'8Bijitv.~red as\'I'~~tf;tbe Commissioners decided to discuss this issue at ',:.:.:,:.:.:.:.:.:,:.:. ................., '.::::::::::::::. '::{}jjjj} 5. A. Case #9~':fuVij:8 (co . ued) James Nerison' equesting variances for impervious sufflce and side e property at 14294 Aspen Avenue. Planner Jenni Tovar presented the PI office of the Planning Director. The Planning Commission c inued the discussion on this est to gather specific information regarding t oundaries ofthe Shoreland District ( . put from the DNR within the SD, and the policy relating to use of easements. 1:\98files\98plcomm\pcmin\mnOS2698.doc 11 '. .~1," ......, lI!i~ " '.""." ~~iII","~_,I~ . ~~ .~. ;"~~:. ... lItJ iF . ,I. .