Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout4 - Shoreland Management Research / AGENDA ITEM: PREPARED BY: SUBJECT: DATE: INTRODUCTION: BACKGROUND: DISCUSSION: "CELEBRATE PRIOR LAKE'S CENTENNIAL - 1991" 4 DAVID J. UNMACHT, CITY MANAGER STAFF PRESENTATION ON SHORELAND MANAGEMENT RESEARCH MARCH 4, 1991 The purpose of this item is to present the research prepared by staff at Council's direction on Shoreland Management. A recent variance application from Paragon Homes resulted in Council's direction to staff to conduct research on the interpretation of our ordinance as it applies to combining substandard lots in the Shoreland District. Council should be aware that an additional application is before staff requiring an interpretation decision again. Staff would like direction from Council prior to this matter being acted on by the Planning Commission and City Council. On January 4, 1991, Mayor Andren received a letter from the DNR (copy was provided to you) regarding the City's need to re-evaluate our Shoreland Management Ordinance prior to January, 1993. On February 19, 1991 City Council approved a Shoreland Management Grant application which was forwarded to the DNR on February 22, 1991. Enclosed is a copy of a letter to the DNR....please note paragra~h 2 which talks about staff's intent to make declsions with respect to our review process beginning in June. Subsequently, the point of this issue is to provide direction to staff only on interpretation of the common ownership section of the Shoreland Management Ordinance. Staff's research is presented in a memo from Director of Planning, Horst Graser. The memo is broken down into the following categories: history, definition of issue, application, impact and recommendation. Of most importance is the information contained in the a~plication section which discusses the number of lmpacted lots and a comparison of other communities. The issue in essence is: does the Council want to continue with the existing interpretation until such time 4629 Dakota 51. 5.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer , ALTERNATIVES: that the Shoreland Management Ordinance is amended? Staff is reviewing the new rules and has talked with the DNR. Indications are that they will be requesting us to change our interpretation of this section of our ordinance. Pat Lynch, Area Hydrologist, will be in attendance representing the DNR staff. Our current interpretation and resulting variance procedure is a contentious process with the public. with few exceptions, our experience has been for objections to occur either at the applicant, or at the neighborhood level. These issues have and will probably continue to come before the City Council for a ruling and a verification of your interpretation of this provision. The alternatives are as follows: 1. Take no action and continue with your existing interpretation of the common ownership provision of the ordinance. 2. Direct staff to interpret the ordinance consistent with the revised intent of the DNR's rules and regulations. 3. Do not take an~ action on this issue and continue to reVlew the interpretation on a case by case basis. 4. Direct staff to conduct further research on the matter prior to taking any action. RECOMMENDATION: This is a difficult decision for staff to develop a conclusion on. Staff can appreciate both sides of the issue in this respect: 1) The recognition of need for this action on behalf of the DNR, yet it is difficult to quantify in Prior Lake's case the positive aspects of the DNR's action on a short and long term basis. 2) We can understand both the potential positive and negative reactions from our community residents on the change in interpretation. So what do we do? Given the assumption that sometime between now and January 1993 we face DNR pressure to change our interpretation, our leaning is toward changing the interpretation now as opposed to later. Council mar want to seek in~ut from Lynch on the DNR's positlon and if there lS any areas of discussion and/or compromise on this interpretation issue. Staff can manage this interpretation in either direction that the Council provides. Action will depend on Council discussion and direction. ACTION: MEMORANDUM DATE: DAVE UNMACHT, CITY MANAGER HORST GRASER, DIRECTOR OF PLANNING ISSUES RELATIVE TO COMBINING SUBSTANDARDS LOTS IN THE SHORELAND DISTRICT FEBRUARY 15, 1991 TO: FROM: RE: HISTORY: In May of 1987, Prior Lake pa~sed the Shoreland Management Ordinance substantiall~ increaslng the standards for shoreland development. The adoptlon of the Shoreland Management Ordinance (SMO) was mandated by the DNR who also developed the standards for the model ordinance. All communities and counties in Minnesota were or will be required to adopt DNR shoreland regulations. We can view this mandating shoreland program as an indication of land management involvement for the DNR. Prior to 1980 the DNR was primarily involved in providing access to natural resources and managing wildlife systems. Today this position has been elevated to an active management program of our resources. Apparently the DNR is of the opinion that a proactive position is necessary to manage the state's resources since cities and counties have failed to do so. Indications are that the DNR's new role in land use management to protect water quality will continue to grow and expand to other resources as well. The lakeshore management regulations are essentially zoning restrictions which have their basis and foundation in hydrological modeling. These standards vary based on the category of lake. Local communities are then asked to adopt them. It must be kept in mind that prior to this point in time local governments have had little or no input. In most cases the state shoreland zoning standards exceed local land use regulations. Any time higher land use standards are adopted, many previously permitted uses are relegated to legal non conforming uses. In short, the actions of society lag significantly behind the events that caused the perceived problem. DEFINITION OF ISSUE: The issue this memorandum explores is whether two or more adjacent and commonly owned lots of record should be combined and developed as one lot or allowed to be developed as substandard individual lots. This issue was the subject of considerable debate during the SMO adoption process. Metro area hydrologist, Mike Mueller, interpreted Rule 6120.3300 20 for the DNR stating that substandard lots of record need ownership at the time of building permit 1988, letter to Mayor Andren). Such an commit city residents to combining and lakeshore management district lot sizes. in force today. The problems these issues are attempting to address are the sources of pollution and land use practices that contribute to the deterioration of water quality and quality of life when it comes to water related experiences. Attempting to define and quantify sources of pollution in todays environment is difficult. What will be even more difficult is changing our land use practices and way of living to maintain or improve water quality and environment. onl~ be in separate appllcation (June 10, interpretation did not uP9rading substandard ThlS interpretation is The substandard contiguous lot issue was the focus of a recent variance appeal to the City Council (VA90-20 Greg Schweich of Paragon Homes). Several of the neighbors objected to the lakeshore variance based on the idea that the two contiguous lakeshore lots should be combined as each separately would present an inadequate and too small a building envelope. The direction for this memorandum was one of the outcomes of this variance hearing. The Council wanted to explore a stricter interpretation for developing substandard lots of record. A stricter interpretation would require a group of two or more contiguous substandard lots under the same ownership to be combined with one or more conti9uous lots so they equal one or more parcels of land each meetlng the requirements of the zoning ordinance as much as possible. APPLICATION: In December of 1990 the Planning Department determine the number and location of two or of record under common ownership in the district. The results were unexpected. conducted research to more substandard lots shoreland management Total number of lakeshore properties with at least two substandard lots of record under one ownership. 117 Total number of non lakeshore properties with at least two substandard lots of record under one ownership. 83 Total number of lakeshore properties with a combination of lakeshore and non lakeshore lots of record under one ownership 7 Total: 207 Of the 207 properties that would be affected by the application of a stricter standard only 22 have not been developed. The undeveloped properties are not concentrated in anyone neighborhood but are spread throu9hout the shoreland district. There may be other considerations WhlCh would prevent separation of the 22 vacant lot combinations, such as topography or unusual lot dimensions. However, those types of factors were not researched. Of the 22 vacant lots, 9 were lakeshore lot combinations. One hundred eighty five properties of the 207 are developed with structures ranging from new homes to old cabins. If the structure is removed or demolished from a combination property than each lot could be developed separately. Time did not permit us to define this group of combination properties to determine the potential number of splits. These combination properties have the following characteristics: 1. "Nestegg Concept" where one or more lots in a homestead situation is held for sale or investment. 2. Properties are combined to form a lot that is developed with a newer home that because of the sizable investment cannot be removed. 3. Properties that have older homes which may straddle property lines but are candidates for future demolition as circumstances present themselves. 4 . Properties that are developed with cabins or homes of various ages and structural integrity. structures ma~ be easily demolished or moved adjacent lot ln anticipation of a sale. summer These to the Demolition or removal of older structures is going to occur more frequently as vacant lakeshore decreases and the value of lakeshore increases. In the last 5 years Prior Lake has issued 26 demolition permits to lakeshore properties. Scenarios 1-3 above were difficult to quantify without extensive research and field checks. However, scenario 4 above, was quantified using building permits and year built information which was available in the Prior Lake computer data base and the least costly method of research. Of the 185 combination properties, 39 structures were built prior to 1950. Seventeen of the 39 structures were built prior to 1940. This study assumes (not verified by field checks) that these are cabins perhaps subject to demolition. Of the l7 structures before 1940, II are located on lakeshore properties. Most of these structures are located in Inguadona Beach, Red Oaks, and Point Beautiful subdivisions. Of relevance and importance is that 14 combination properties out of the l85 have structures on them but no building permit record exists either in Prior Lake City Hall or Scott County. We can assume that these properties are extremely old and may be subject to demolition. other communities in the metropolitan area have also been struggling with substandard lots. This study solicited information from some of these communities to serve as a base of comparison for possible action. Every community that was solicited has dealt with or is about to address substandard lots. A most interesting result was that, with the exception of Plymonth, the smallest lakeshore communities surveyed was 20,000 square 60,000 square feet. Prior Lake's square feet. lot size in any of the feet and the largest was current lot size is 15,000 In the City of Minnetonka, the minimum lot size is 22,000 square feet with no vacant lakeshore lots. They consider substandard lots to be between 22,000 and 15,000 square feet and be buildable with variances. Anything smaller does not receive variances. The City of Chanhassen has a 20,000 square foot minimum lot size. Their substandard lots must be at least 75% of the current standard otherwise they are not buildable. In the City of Orono, the minimum lakeshore lot size is 1/2 acre. It is their policy to combine substandard lots by not granting any variances. The lot size in the City of Deephaven range from 20,000 to 60,000 square feet. They have not adopted shoreland regulations and encourage substandard lots to be combined. Variances are not issued to substandard lots. The cities of White Bear Lake and Wayzata have adopted shoreland regulations and interpret them similar to Prior Lake. The City of Shorewood has a minimum lakeshore lot size of 40,000 square feet. In order for a lot to be buildable it must be at least 70% of the size and width of the current requirements or it is not buildable. The City of Plymonth has adopted shoreland regulations with a minimum lakeshore lot size of 15,000 square feet. This community has adopted provisions for combining substandard lakeshore lots under one ownership. Paramount to any action relative to substandard lots is the legal issue of "taking". Sherri Ulland, Attorney with Lommen, Nelson, Cole & Stageberg P.A., researched the "taking" issue. She concluded that there would be no "taking" since the owners of all substandard lots will not be deprived of all reasonable use of their property if they are forced to combine their lots. Further, she states, that owners will not be able to show a substantial diminution in value because the property can still be sold or developed as long as it is combined with one or more contiguous lots. (memorandum from Sherri Ulland, January 28, 1991) . Of equal importance on the issue of "taking" is a 1988 court case in Hennepin County. The City of Shorewood in 1985 enacted a zoning code change that established an absolute minimum buildable lot size which 1S 70% of the current 40,000 square foot standard or 28,000 square foot. The plaintiffs have owned a vacant 50 foot lakeshore lot (10,950 square foot in area) since 1956, at which time it was buildable. In 1986 the plaintiffs were denied a building permit by the Planning Commission and City Council. The court ruled as follows: The Court is compelled to the conclusion that there has been no taking because plaintiffs still enjoy a reasonable use of their property, the use to which the property has been put for the last 30 years - swimming, boat storage and dockage, and access to the lake. Noth1ng in the zoning ordinance prevents plaintiffs from using their property for the above purposes. continuation of a present use is a reasonable use even if it may not be the most profitable use. IMPACT: It is impossible for this study to attempt to measure the these alternatives will have on the problem. Perhaps absence of quantifiable data, decision makers must look at alternatives in an abstract way. The DNR has defined and delineated in a comprehensive way sources of pollution. Inappropriate land use practices are but a part of the water quality problem. Based on their knowledge, testing, and expertise, they have concluded that a stricter land use practice such as larger lakeshore lots is a positive water quality management tool. impact in the these Earlier in this text it was stated that 207 combination properties exist in the Prior Lake Shoreland District. One hundred seventeen of these are lakeshore properties. Theoretically the current zoning code would allow an additional 207 homes to be build, 117 of those could be built on substandard lakeshore lots. A vast majority of the substandard lakeshore lots are 50 foot wide and between 7000 to 10,000 square feet in area. Most of the other cities surveyed do not issue building permits to lots of that size. Several months ago, Prior Lake received official notice that within two years the DNR's latest shoreland regulations must be adopted. One of the components of the new regulations is the requirement that substandard lakeshore properties must be combined. This DNR undertaking has been predictable since local jurisdictions and their disinterested experts have found little relevance in strengthening the bond with other governments to collaborate in overcoming uncertainties. RECOMMENDATION: staff is inclined to seek whatever immediately. Water is a common and community. Its value is being threatened of common and mutual goals. This threat should be dealt with as quickly as shackle the potential of this community. remedy is available shared resource to our along with the security is not an idle one and possible so it does not d ~" L /~ I ~ / /;tP "CELEBRATE PRIOR LAKE'S CENTENNIAL - 1991" February 22, 1991 Mr. Ed Fick Shore land Hydrologist DNR Division of Waters 1200 Warner Road st. Paul, MN 55106 Dear Mr. Fick, Enclosed is a copy of the state of Minnesota, Department of Natural Resources Shoreland Grant Application adopted by the Prior Lake City council on Tuesday, February 19, 1991. The City of Prior Lake is interested in participating in your Shoreland Grant Application Program. We received our official notification to revise our Shoreland Management Rules on January 4, 1991. Currently we are evaluating a section of our ordinance, but we have not undertaken an aggressive action to evaluate the entire ordinance in order to make it compliant with the new Shore land Grant Rules and Regulations. We intend to make decisions with respect to our renewal process beginning in June, 1991. If ~ou have any questions with respect to our application or our reV1ew of the Shoreland Management Ordinance, please feel free to contact me. Please keep me informed as to the status of our grant application. Thank you for your consideration. /' nc~rT fur Ovid J. Unmacht c'ty Manager ity of Prior Lake DJU : db cc: Horst Graser Deb Garross 4629 Dakota 51. 5.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 3TATE OF MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES SHORELAND GRANT APPLICATION WHEREAS, the State, as provided by Minnesota Statutes 103F .201-221 and Minnesota Rules parts 6120.2500 through 6120.3900 pertaining to Statewide Standards for "Management of Shoreland Areas"; and WHEREAS, the State is authorized by the Laws of 1989, Chapter 335, Article 1, Section 21, Subd 3 to provide grant assistance for Cities to adopt a shoreland management ordinance consistent with statewide standards. NOW THEREFORE, subject to available funding, it is hereby requested by the City of ~,~~ that an agreement be entered into by the State of Minnesota, acting by and through the Commissioner of Natural Resources and the City of /?vn ~ , to provide grant money assistance up to $5,000.00 matching fund dollars, for the purposes of adopting a shoreland management ordinance consistent with statewide standards. --/ BY: ---,./<..../~-< L----'" /' / Mayor DATE: ~ Ujlff/ /---- // (' //_-L_7~ L..--~-<"" "CELEBRATE PRIOR LAKE'S CENTENNIAL - 1991" TO: Mayor and City Council David J. Unmacht, City Manager March 1, 1991 RE: AGENDA ITEM 4 - REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING March 4, 1991 The purpose of this short memorandum the Staff Report for Agenda Item 4. Attorney, Glenn Kessel, I would Alternative Sections - #2 and #3: is to clarify a section of After a discussion with City like to clarify, in the Alternative #2 If this alternative is selected, Glenn is recommending that the City Council amend the ordinance to reflect their revised intent. In other words, if the City Council wants to proceed with changing the interpretation, the motion should NOT be to direct staff to interpret the ordinance consistent with the revised intent of the DNR Rules and Regulations, rather, the motion should be to direct staff to develop a revised ordinance to be consistent with the revised intent of the DNR Rules and Regulations. We would then proceed with the ordinance amendment process. I would add that we would not have to notify all affected property owners with respect to this ordinance change, but simply follow our standard ordinance amendment procedure. Alternative #3 Eliminate #3 entirely and substitute that for the following: Do not take any action on the interpretation issue at this time, and direct staff to develop an ordinance providing for a moratorium on the consideration of all variances and applications related to the common ownership provisions of the Shoreland Management Ordinance. In effect, this alternative delays the decision of the Council, however, it will provide the means by which the City can avoid acting on these applications until such time that a final decision is made. This decision could be made at any time between now and when we are reviewing the Shoreland Management Ordinance. City Attorne~ Kessel would prepare a moratorlum ordinance for your processlng. 4629 Dakota 51. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer