Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutOctober 4, 1999 'EM' "'0" IA' N....' U'" "M V' - ...." f' . ." . " . f " " .,......'.;; .': ',( . .. ...... '....1. ' i I,i : ., ,,~ '::,:"" >, ,~",:"::.:., "%~"':'~' 'C:."':,:,_ '.<",~:,~~>~,. '.C>, """', '. . ..:;;::::~.)~, if ,.,,:':':'; ?'UJm eM 7)~ ~ FRANK BOYLES October 1, 1999 TO: Mayor Mader and Council member RE: October 4, 1999 Work Session (5pm) Attached is the agenda for the October 4th work session scheduled to commence at 5pm. This memorandum is intended to provide background information about each agenda topic. _ (1) Lakefront Park Tour: While Lakefront Park development is not complete, significant progress has been made. We would like to spend 30 minutes driving the Council around the site and describing what is and what will be. We will meet at the Fire Station promptly at 5pm and board one vehicle to complete the tour. (2) Zoning Ordinance Discussion: Upon returning to the Fire Station, a light dinner will be served. While we eat we will review each of the zoning ordinance issues shown on the attached memo from Jane Kansier which were raised in the Mayor's September 17, 1999 letter previously distributed. Councilmembers may have other issues they wish to discuss so that we can expedite necessary corrections. (3) 1999 City Manager I City Staff Objectives: Attached is a copy of the objectives. I have marked the probable completion date next to each. I am seeking Council input regarding your priorities for completion. (4) Other Business: Three issues have risen which require policy direction from the City Council: A) Wilds Mowing. The Wilds begins mowing the 1 st and 10th fairways at about 5am each morning during the summer. This mowing schedule is intended to keep the course maintained without disturbing golfers who have paid $100.00 per round. The City's ordinance regulating combustion engines prohibits the operation of internal combustion engines before 6am weekdays, 7am Saturday and 8am Sunday, unless a permit is received from the City (see attached). I have received (attached) two letters from Wilds residents concerned about the early mowing. I have also received a letter from the Wilds requesting a permit to allow them to mow (attached). From May to September 15th, they want to mow at 5am every day of the week, and from 16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER March 15th to April 30th and again in the month of October, they want to mow beginning at 8am every day of the week. The Wilds indicated that to continue to charge $100 per round, they must maintain the course daily without disturbing golfers. Chief O'Rourke has checked with similar golf courses (see attached memo) and found that most, including those with residents on the course, follow this early morning mowing procedure. The Wilds also argue that the covenants as stated in the homeowner's association allow them to mow. Attached is the cover page and pages 38 and 39 of the golf community covenants supplied by the Wilds, which appear to indicate that The Wilds is authorized to create a nuisance associated with special events and maintenance. Two Wilds residents who are concerned about the mowing schedules argue that 5am is too early. One seems to indicate that they would settle for a later time on Saturday and Sunday. The other is concerned that the rest of the property owners would want to have input on this matter if they were aware that a permit had been requested. The Wilds makes a good case for their request and the residents are aware their homes built near a golf course, which requires daily maintenance and tends to be used in the early hours daily. This issue appears likely to end up in the Council's lap whether a permit is issued or not. Consequently, I am seeking your policy direction before making a decision. B) Private Use of Public Right-of-Way. There are numerous instances around the City where residents have installed bituminous or concrete on right-of-way adjacent to improved roads for the purpose of storing a boat, car or recreational vehicle. We will have pictures at the workshop. In many cases, the residents have placed concrete or bituminous retaining walls to provide for these storage areas. There are undoubtedly others in the community who would do the same thing if they believed it was legal. Recently, Mr. Montreuil of Fairlawn Shores contacted the Engineering Department to determine whether or not he could make such improvements. While Mr. Montreuil's inquiry was confusing, the information he was given was not complete. I have attached materials that were provided to the Council in a earlier Update. In short, the storage area should not have been improved. Since there are numerous such storage areas around the community, the question becomes how do we deal with existing storage areas, and what action if any do we take to discourage similar activities in the future? I :\FRANK\MEMOS\COUNCIL\99\WS1 00499.DOC C) Cable Television Franchise Agreement and Ordinance: The City Council appointed a subcommittee of Mayor Mader and Council member Kedrowski, who have met with myself and Attorney Brian Grogan in order to discuss the status of negotiations of the franchise agreement and ordinance.. The timeline for closing this agreement will require that the Council act upon the assignment request on October 18th. I will provide additional information on this subject at the work session if time allows. I :\FRANK\MEMOS\COUNCI L \99\WS 100499 .DOC PRIOR LAKE CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION Monday, October 4,1999 5:00 p.m. Fire Station City Council Chambers (1) Tour of Lakefront Park Improvements (2) Zoning Ordinance Discussion (3) 1999 City Manager/Staff Objectives (4) Other Matters (5) Adjourn (6:50pm) 16200 ~99r~ve. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER 1-01-1995 0:07AM FROM P.2 From The Des" 0/: Mayor Wesley M. Mader September 17, 1999 MEMORANDUM TO: Frank Boyles., City Manager COWlciJ Members FROM: WeS Mader SUBJECT: Prior Lake Subdivision Code While attempting to assist a citizen in understanding out Subdivision Code, it became apparent that the Code as approved contains inconsistencies from what I believe ~s the intention of the Council. I believe we all recognized that this was likely to happen bec:ause of the enormous task that the Staff hid undertaken. h\1t it's important that we (:OtT'eC;t these errors as quickly as possible. Problem areas that 1 ha\le observed art! outlined below. I will be asking the Council to approve a resolution requesting the Staff' to r-eview these items and to bring a resolution with appropriate changes to the next Council meeting. I recognize that I may be misintl:rpreting some items. 1101.50 I, (3)c: This paragraph in effect wipes out the existence of all previously existing building lots of Teeord if they do not comply with the new ordinance.. and aTC held in CQITlmon ownership on May I, 1999, the effectivity date of the new ordinance. It is my remembnmce that the Council did agree to elitninate these Jots ofrecord, but also agreed that there would be a 6 month gtate period after passage oftbe ordinrmc;e to permit owners to sell or transfer title. 1 believe we agreed that we did not want our citizens to wake up on May 2 and learn that we had just substantially reduced the value ofthw prl;lpSty- This paragraph is interesting in light of the 6 month graee period included in the following paragraph. 1101.501 , (3)d: 'Ibis paragraph in effecr states that Il pr"!>ert)" owner with adjoining properties has until Novemher,!. 1999 to subdivide his pr~y to 75 foot width. This makes no sense if minimum width per our ord~ce is 75 feet, but I'm now confused about that. Paragraph 1104.302, (3) shows the followin.g. RipatianLots Single Area 15,000 Lot 90 Width at 7S What does the 90 under "Lot" mean. and what does the 7S undet- "Width af' mean? 16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 I Ph. (612) 447-4230 I Fax: (612) 447-4245 to 1\1 ~nl I to I flDDnPTIII\II1'V FMPI nVI'R 1-01-1995 0:07AM FROM P.3 From The Desk Of: Mayor Wesley M. Mader 1104.201: This section defines 4 classes ofwatet$; NatuJ:al Environmen1al Lakes, Recreational EnvironmentLak~ Gerunl Development Lakes. and TribuIal)' Sa-cams, and identifies whiob olass eacb of our lakes fall into. However. in paragraph 1] 04.30 1 (3) we include a table of requirements for "Natural Development Lak~". Does this mean Natural Environmental LBkes, General Development Lakes, or neither? Paragraph 1104.302 (2) includes a table of requirements for Recreational Development. I would asswne this means ~eational Environment, but we should be using consistent language. Plttagraph 1104.302 (4) includes a table ofrequirerncnts that alpin lists Natural Development Lakes and Recteational Developments Lakes,. and a.lso lists Tributary Development Lakes which I presume is supposed to be Tributary Streams (also listed in paragraph 1104.301 (2) as Tributary Rivers and Streams and in paragraph 1104.301 (3) as Tributary Rivers. 1104.301 (3): This paragraph defines setback requir~ents from the OHW for unsew~ed Natural Developments Lakes (which I3.S$Ulne was intended to read Natural Environmental Lakes) and for Tributary Rivers, but aeates no setbsclc for unsewered Gen,eral Development Lakes (i.e_ Spring Lake). Are all lots an Spring lake that are within the City of Prior Lake sewered? What happens if we annex unsewered lots on Spring Lake. It also creates no setbaek for unsewered Recreational Environmental Lakes like Markle)' or Blind. This doesn't seem to make sense. 1104.308 (2): This parauaph restricts setback averaging on shOl'etalld tots to un.developed Jots only. In other words a homeowner wbose house is 75 feet back from the lake (with neighbors with 50 foot setbacks) is stuck there, and would nat be allowed to add even a 10 foot ded... However, ifhe tore his house down, he would be allowed to rebuild at SO feet. This doesn't make sense, and I don't belie'tlc this was the Council's intent I believe we intended that averaging be allowed on developed or undeveloped lots. 1104.302 (4): In this table, what d(IeS t<lltruCture height setback" mean? Also. in determining structure height limitation, what height is used (for example on a walkOUl, do we use the beight at the walkout level or at the house front level, which is Qften diffefent by 10 feet on lake shore lots? Lastly. at our last Council meeting. we Were asked by Staff'to add the foJlowing language to the non Shoreland distrids, on the basis that it had been included in the Shoreland District as intended, but was missed in the non Shoreland disnicts. To allow replacement of ex.isting decks that do not meet setback requirements subject to three ~ditions as follows: I. The deck existed on the date the structure setbacks were establish~ 2. The replacement deck is in the same size, configuration, location and elevation as the deck in existen~ at the time the structw"e setbacks were established. 3. The d~ is constructed prirnlU'ily of wood and is not roofed or scremed. ' We aceommodal:e(1 the Staffs req\lest. However, J am not Ilbte to find thls language in the Shorelmd District (W'dinance as reported. It appears to me that we still have an inconsistency between Shoreland and nQll Shoreland.. ' Wes Madet uJ~ 16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., PriOr Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 ~.., 1I'.'r,~\~1 _"'''''.....1'''1.,..., H.n'T'"I "'\0.""'" ""\I~ro Memorandum FROM: Frank Boyles, City Manager Don Rye, Planning Director Jane Kansier, Planning coordinator~ October 1, 1999 TO: DATE: RE: Zoning Ordinance Issues cc: Suesan Lea Pace, City Attorney Mayor Mader's memorandum, dated September 17, 1999, raises several issues in the Zoning Ordinance. This memorandum is an attempt to answer some of those questions. It also outlines the actions we discussed at our meeting with the Mayor and City Attorney. SECTION 1101.501 (3,c & n) COMBINATION OF NONCONFORMING LOTS: Prior to the adoption of the Zoning Ordinance, there was extensive discussion on this issue. As I recall, the current language was a compromise that allowed property owners six months to subdivide their property even though it did not meet all lot area and width requirements. Essentially, the ordinance allows a property owner with three 50' wide riparian lots to create two lots, each 75' wide and 12,000 square feet in area. The ordinance generally requires a minimum lot area of 15,000 square feet and a minimum lot frontage of90' for a riparian lot. The ordinance does not allow the subdivision of 50' wide lots within the six month time frame. This compromise was based in part on the information provided by the City Attorney in the attached memorandum outlining the legal issues involved in the combination of nonconforming lots. It was also based on the position of the Department of Natural Resources requiring the lot combination provision. This position was stated both in a letter, dated November 20, 1998, and by Area Hydrologist Patrick Lynch at one of the Council work sessions. The Council should determine if this language meets their original intention. If not, and the Council wishes to add a grace period, the ordinance must be amended. SECTION 1104.302 (3) SETBACK TABLES: The lot width on the tables refer to lot width at the front building line and lot width at the ordinary high water elevation. the requirement is 90' at the front building line and 75' at the ordinary high water elevation. These lines were included in the first printed version of the ordinance. For some reason, they were deleted when the code was printed. Revising the tables can be done as an administrative correction. 1:\newzone\memo2.doc SECTION 1104.201 PUBLIC WATER CLASSIFICATIONS: Once again, this language is directly out of the previous ordinance. However, I think the Mayor is correct in that we should be consistent. I believe such a change could be done administratively. We will need to double check the classifications with the DNR, and make sure we are consistent throughout the ordinance. SECTION 1104.301 (3) SETBACKS FOR SEWERED AND UNSEWERED LAKES: All of the General Development and Recreational Development lakes in the City are either within the MUSA, or designated for development on sewer on the Comprehensive Plan. The Plan is structured so that new development in these areas should not take place until sewer and water services are available. If we were to annex Spring Lake, we would have to address the issue of sewer at that time. SECTION 1104.308 (2) SETBACK AVERAGING: The language in this section is exactly the same as the language in the previous ordinance. The new ordinance also allows setback averaging to be extended beyond the adjacent lots in some instances. The language does seem to apply to new structures only; however, I believe that we may have previously interpreted this to apply to any new construction, such as additions, decks, and so on. If the Council feels setback averaging should be applied to additions to existing structures as well as new construction, an amendment is required. The Council should discuss this item and provide the staffwith some feedback. SECTION 1104.302 (4) STRUCTURE HEIGHT: This table incorrectly refers to structure height setback. I believe it was intended as simply structure setback. This change can be made administratively. As to structure height, the definition of height, including where the measurement is taken, is found in Section 1101.400. SECTION 1104.202 (3,A) DECKS IN THE SHORELAND DISTRICT: This section not only allows the replacement of existing decks, but also allows new or larger decks in the Shoreland District which do not meet the setback requirements. This provision has been in the Zoning Ordinance since the adoption of the Shoreland requirements in 1995. There was no discussion on this language during our Zoning Ordinance discussion. The Council may want to determine whether this language should remain in the ordinance. If it is to be removed, an amendment is required. SECTION 1003.401 EFFECTIVE DATE: This language is part ofthe Subdivision Ordinance, not the Zoning Ordinance, and refers specifically to that paragraph. SECTION 1101.400 BLUFF DEFINITION: The attached information was distributed to the Council during the work sessions. It describes the history and the reasoning behind the language in the ordinance. Some of the changes described in the above paragraphs require specific amendments to the Zoning Ordinance. An amendment is first considered at a public hearing by the Planning Commission, then reviewed by the City Council. If the Council would like to make these changes, a motion and second initiating these amendments and directing staff to schedule the public hearings before the Planning Commission is appropriate. The changes that can be done administratively, such as corrections to the table, will be done by staff. New pages will be distributed when this work is completed. 1:\newzone\memo2.doc Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Metro Waters - 1200 Warner Road, St. Paul, MN 55106-6793 Telephone: (651) 772-7910 Fax: (651) 772-7977 r~:m November 20, 1998 Ms. Jane Kansier City of Prior Lake 16200 Eagle Creek Ave. SE Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 , lJ \J L RE: SHORELAND ZONll~G Dear Ms. Kansier: Recently, I have had discussion with you, other planning staff, and the city attorney regarding shoreland zoning. Please let me take a moment to clarify a couple of matters, as it has been some time since I have provided written communication to you regarding the city's shoreland ordinance. For a number of years, I have been working with the City of Prior Lake toward adoption of a compliant shoreland zoning ordinance. While the city has adopted and is effectively administering a shoreland ordinance which is nearly compliant with the minimum statewide standards as prescribed by law, the latest draft I reviewed is not yet compliant. We have discussed, and I have agreed to, flexibility from the statewide standards for building height, impervious surface, lot area for sewered lots on RD lakes, and lot area for non-riparian sewered lots on NE lakes. In these instances, the city successfully demonstrated justification for varying from the requirements of the law, and did so through the formal flexibility process outlined in the state shoreland rules. The one facet of your ordinance which the city and DNR have not agreed upon is the issue of combination of substandard lots of record. This issue has resulted in DNR not certifying approval of Prior Lake's ,. oramance. Minnesota Rules, part 6120.3300, subpart 2.D. (having the effect oflaw), are clear on the combination of lots of record. You have access to the rule, so I will not type it out. The gist of that provision is that contiguous substandard lots of record in common ownership must be combined to meet the current zoning standards as much as possible. Substandard lots of record may be allowed as building sites provided the lot has been in separate ownership from abutting lands at all times since it became substandard. This is the law. It is not discretionary. This requirement has been challenged in the legal arena and has been upheld. The city must adopt language which complies with the law. I suggest the language out of the DNR model ordinance. The city's current ordinance language does not meet the intent of the law, and will not receive DNR approval. DNR Information: 612-296-6157, 1-800-766-6000 . TTY: 612-296-5484, 1-800-657-3929 An Equal Opportunity Employer Who Values Diversity ft. Printed on Recycled Paper Containing a '-41 Minimum of 10'" Post-Consumer Waste Jane Kansier November 20, 1998 page 2 As I stated earlier, I have been patiently working on this shoreland revision with the city for a long time, and have reviewed more draft ordinances than I care to admit. I was of the understanding that when the city revised its entire zoning code, which is in process now, this component of the shoreland ordinance would be revised to bring it in to compliance with the law. I was disappointed to see the latest proposed- zoning amendments do not reflect compliant language with respect to nonconforming lots of record. . Another matter that came up recently is that of sideyard setbacks. The state shoreland rules do not address sideyard setback. While sideyard setbacks are especially important on riparian lots (to avoid the wall effect when viewed from the water), they serve other non-shoreland purposes such as privacy, allowing room for equipment to access rear yards, public utility easements, etc. It is not clear to me why sideyard setbacks are not addressed in the shoreland rules. I look forward to bringing closure to the shoreland zoning ordinance amendment process with your community. If compliant language regarding nonconforming lots of record is adopted, I will be prepared to recommend state approval of your shoreland ordinance. If not, I must consider the state's legal obligation in ensuring local shoreland controls meet the requirements of the law. There are provisions in the law which allow for the commissioner to adopt and administer local shoreland controls, and assess the costs of such an endeavor to the city. I'm no more interested in that than the city is. I am available to meet with you or the Planning Commission or City Council to further discuss these and other land use matters. If you have any questions, or would like to schedule a time to meet, please call me at 772-7910. Thank you for your diligent administration of shoreland zoning controls. Sincerely, ~~yn~ Area Hydrologist Ed Fick, DNR Shoreland Hydrologist Dale Homuth, Regional Hydrologist 1~/~6/~S FRI.16:09 FAX 612 452 5550 CAMPBELL [4] 002 CAMPBELL KNUTSON Pr(lf<:::s:sional A~~nciC1lj.Lln A twmey::; at Law -1"11I 'l1las,I. C:lmpndl R{.).!cl' N. Kllllt:;\ln Th,)Jn:lS M. ~C\)tl ElliplI 11 Kn<:rs".h SII,'S'1I1 LI:,) 1'.,1:0:: (65!) ':l~2-1000 Fax (6') 1) 452-5550 Jm:1 J. ,1:lmnik Andreu Mcl)n.....dl Puchlcr Mnllhcw K. Rrnkl'. Jc.hn F. Kdly M,'rrhew J. Foli M:'lrClll;\ritt: M. Me.CarTon *** ';Abll 'It'r."Tl~d in \~/i.~ItICill Writer's Oirect Dial:234-6226 Writer's Fax: 452-5550 A nORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGED MEMORANDUM November 6, 1998 TO: City Council, City Manager and Planning Director FROM: Suesan Lea Pace RE: Development of Nonconforming lots PURPOSE: This memorandum will deal with two issues that were raised during the public hearings on the proposed zoning ordinance. One issue dealt with a merger requirement for substandard lots in common ownership. The second issue concerned nonconforming uses and structures. Each issue will be addressed separately. ISSUE ONE: MERGER OF SUBSTANDARD LOTS Scenario A: Landowner A owns contiguous undeveloped lots which meet the minimum lot size requirement or which are pr~sently buildable substandard lots. See generally Section 1101.501 (Proposed Zoning Ordinance). City adopts an amendment to the zoning ordinance which increases the required minimum lot size. This has the effect of making Landowner A's contiguous undeveloped lots substandard. Can City require that landowner A combine her contiguous undeveloped lots in order to meet the minimum lot size requirements of the new zoning ordinance? SHORT ANSWER: Yes. Minnesota courts have consistently approved of zoning ordinances which apply the doctrine of merger. These ordinances require the owner of a nonconforming undeveloped lot who also owns adjacent undeveloped property to combine the two undeveloped lots. FINDINGS I LEGAL OPINION: Merger generally requires the combination of two or more contiguous lots of substandard size that are held in common ownership in order to meet the minimum-square-footage requirements of a particular zoned district. Substandard lots cannot be developed as individual nonconforming lots unless the property falls within an exemption provision or the landowner applies for a variance. In Oederino v. Johnson, 239 N.W.2d 913 (Minn. 1976), the Minnesota supreme court expressly approved of the use of the merger doctrine in zoning ordinances. Isanti County's zoning ordinance stated that property owners of substandard lots were not entitled to the automatic issuance of building Suir.e .1'17 · Eagandale Office Cl~nt(:r · 1380 Corpomtc: C~:ntt:r Curve .. Engnn, MN 55121 11106/98 FRI 16:10 FAX 612 452 5550 CAMPBELL [4]003 F. Boyles November 6, 1998 Paqe 2 of 4 ".-, permits if the lots had been held in common ownership when the County adopted its merger ordinance and thus could have been combined to form a standard lot. The supreme court approved of this ordinance and held that where the owner of a nonconforming undeveloped lot also owns adjacent undeveloped property, the owner must combine the two undeveloped lots to meet minimum zoning requirements. Dederinq has been followed in other jurisdictions upholding the use of the merger doctrine to require the combination. of substandard lots in common ownership. One common exception provides that a substandard lot will be exempt from the merger doctrine if it was a lot of record prior to the effective date of the zoning ordinance. Such an exception allows the - landowner to develop a substandard lot only if the lot remains isolated and was under single ownership at the time the zoning ordinance was adopted. However, if the landowner owns any adjacent lots that, if combined, would satisfy the square-footage requirements, then the landowner is not entitled to the exception. The landowner therefore must merge the lots to form a single parcel of land that will meet the area requirements. See R.J.E.P. Associates v. Hellewell, 560 A.2d 353 (R.\. 1989) (discussing the merger doctrine). '. Scenario B: Landowner A owns two contiguous substandard lots which even after combination do not meet the area and width requirements for a buildable lot. SHORT ANSWER: The combined lots are buildable without a variance if they meet the 66 2/3 requirement in Section 1101.501 (3)a. If the property does not meet the 66 2/3rd rule the landowner must apply for a variance. Scenario C: Landowner A owns an undersized lot with -a contiguous conforming lot. Can the City require that she combine the two lots? SHORT ANSWER: Yes. The merger doctrine has been applied to compel the merger of an undersized lot with a contiguous conforming lot. One commentator states that "Ia]n owner of several contiguous parcels may not combine them so as to leave a substandard lot, and assert a right to an exception of the latter." R. Anderson, American Law of Zoninq ~ 9.67, at 310-11 (3d ed. 1986, volume 2). Scenario 0: Landowner A owns an undersized lot which is unimproved with a contiguous conforming lot that is improved with buildings. Can the City require that she combine the two lots? SHORT ANSWER: Yes. In Tuckner v. Township of Mav, 419 N.W.2d 836 (Minn. App. 1988), the court of appeals ruled that the merger doctrine may apply to both improved and unimproved land. Thus, if landowner A owns two contiguous Jots, one of which is improved with buildings and conforms to the minimum zoning requirements, and another of which is unimproved and substandard, landowner A can be required to combine the two lots. Scenario E: If landowner A owns a conforming lot at the time of the adoption of the new zoning ordinance, and subsequently acquires an adjacent substandard lot, must she combine the now contiguous properties? 11/b6/98 FRI 16:10 FAX 612 452 5550 CAMPBELL [aJ 004 F. Boyles November 6, 1998 PaCle 3 of 4 SHORT ANSWER: Yes. However. the proposed zoning ordinance does not address this issue, If the purpose of the merger provision is to minimize the number of houses constructed on substandard lots the ordinance should expressly provide that if two or more contiguous nonconforming lots having continuous frontage are under single ownership at any time after the effective date of the ordinance. the lots shall be considered as an individual parcel for purposes of the ordinance. We are not aware of any reported Minnesota appell.ate case which addresses this issue. See Gavin L. Phillips, "Construction and APplication of Zoning Laws Setting Minimum Lot Size Requirements," Volume 2, American Law Reports, 5th edition, at 634-35 (attached). Scenario F: If the goal of the City's merger ordinance is to minimize the number of houses constructed on substandard lots, is that objective defeated by allowing a six month window during which the owner of two or more contiguous lots, any of which may be substandard, may transfer one or more of the substandard lots into separate ownership? SHORT ANSWER: Probably so. Scenario G: If the ordinance provides a grace period for transferring the property prior to the merger ordinance applying should there be any restrictions regarding to whom the property can be transferred or sold? SHORT ANSWER.: Yes. The landowner(s) should be prohibited from transferring the property to a spouse. Although a husband or wife can own property in their own name, their spouse has a spousal interest in the property. Scenario H: Should the City adopt a more specific merger ordinance that addresses the issues discussed above? SHORT ANSWER: I recommend that the City adopt some version of a more specific merger ordinance. LEGAL SUPPORT: Our review of the case law revealed the following ordinance, used in Rhode Island: If two (2) or more lots or combinations of lots and portions of lots with continuous frontage in single ownership are of record at the time of or subsequenttothe passage or amendment of this Ordinance, and if all or part of the lots do not meet the requirements established for lot width and areas, the lands involved shall be considered to be an individual parcel for the purpose of this Ordinance, and no portion of said parcel shall be used or sold in a manner which diminishes compliance with lot width or area requirements established by this Ordinance, nor shall any division of any parcel be made which creates a lot with width or area below the requirements'stated in this Ordinance. If necessary to assure compliance with other provisions of this Ordinance, the lots shall be combined. 11/06/98 FRI 16:10 FAX 612 452 5550 CAMPBELL ~005 F. Boyles November 6, 1998 Paqe 4 of 4 .~., In Matter of Johnson, 404 N.W.2d 298 (Minn. App. 1987), overruled by Myron v. City of Plymouth, 562 N.W.2d 21 (Minn. App. 1997), the court of appeals approved of the following Forest lake Township merger ordinance: If in a group of two or more contiguous lots or parcels of land owned or controlled by the same person, any individual lot or parcel does not meet the full width or area requirements of this Ordinance, such individual lot or parcel cannot be considered as a separate parcel of land for purposes of sale or development, but must be combined with adjacent lots or parcels under the same ownership so that the combination of lots or parcels will equal one or more parcels of land each meeting the full lot width and area requirements of this Ordinance. ISSUE TWO: NONCONFORMING STRUCTURES The question has been raised concerning whether a structure on a substandard lot can be rebuilt without a variance if the structure is destroyed by fire or natural disaster. The folloWing provision which addressed this question, was removed from the May 5, 1998 version of the proposed ordinance. \ LEGAL SUPPORT: Section 1101.501 (3)b provided that: ANY SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED DWELLING WHICH EXISTS ON THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS ORDINANCE ON ANY NONCONFORMING LOT LOCATED WITHIN THE r-1, r-2 OR r-3 USE DISTRICT which is later destroyed by fire or other natural disaster may be rebuilt if a building permit for reconstruction is issued within 365 days of its destruction and if it otherwise conforms with the provisions of this Ordinance. Based on the discussion at the November 4, 1998 council meeting this language may be reinserted. The cited language does not address the issue of whether the dwelling can be rebuilt as it existed before its destruction or whether it must meet setback and impervious surface requirements to the extent possible. Planning Director Rye will provide the Council with a recommendation. One additional concern that individuals have raised is that they will not be able to sell or refinance if their dwelling becomes nonconforming with the adoption of the proposed zoning ordinance, When Don Rye and I worked on the comprehensive revision to the St. Louis Park Zoning Ordinance this same concern was raised. Don Rye and I asked representatives from several banks and mortgage companies to attend a meeting to discuss the concerns that had been expressed. The bankers and lenders who attended the meeting indicated they would finance or refinance property that was legally nonconforming. Attached hereto are copies of the merger ordinances from Plymouth, Burnsville, Inver Grove Heights, Chanhassen, and Bloomington. lj-aAL",i ZONING LOT SIZE REQ.Ull\EMEtITS 2 ALR5lh 553 2 ALR5lh 19 r W ZONING LOT SIZli R~Q.umEMliNTs' :5, 2' AI..R!i Ih 55!! &. 2. Lot Held in Single and 'cpara!e O~~rS'hip as of Dale Specified 111 Ordinance but bsequently Acquircd by Owner of Adjacent Property 9. Lot currently held in single and separate ownership -he 10l. in queslion in thc case :us.sed. III this section, which had n 10 smgle and separate owner- ) as of Ihe date of enactment of ordinance imposing the mini- n lot area requirement, was 1~ by the courl to be a noncon- :ung Jot with respect 10' the .er, although, in the period bc- ~n the enactment of the ordi- :e and the acquiSition of the lot he current owner, the lot had 1 owned by an owner of adja- oj property. ~ ;he course of setting aside the ~ilOn of ~e zoning board of ~:als denymg a variance to the 'crt}' owner for the conslTuc- of a residence on a l-acre lot :1 area zoncd for 2-acre mini- l lots, the court in Soros v o d of Appeals (1966) 50 Mise :g 05. 269 NYS2d 196, aIfd {2d on ~ 27 App Div 2d 705, 277 ~,-d 821, held that the Jot '<1'1 had bc:n in single and sepa~ ~ ownershIp as of the datc of w:ment of the ~rc:linance impos~ ~.he 2-acre mlmmum require- [.1.., was a nonconforming lot ::: re~pect to the owner, al- ..~h, In the period between the ~ men.t . ?f the ordinance and H1cqulSltlOn of the lot by (he ~nt owner, the lot had been d by an owner of adjacent ~~rly. The court pointed out .~ he ordinance did not refer at .5 th~ possible merger of non- .-inning parcels at some later 2 ALR5th ordinancc. were acquired by the same owner after the effective date of the ordinance. The ordinance provided for an exception to the minimum area requirement for nonconforming lots "sho'wn on a recorded plat or on a recorded deed on the effective date [of lhe ordinance]," except as provided by the merger provision of the ordi- nance which required two or more contiguous nonconforming lots having continuous frontage under single ownership at any time after the effective date of the ordinance to be considered as an individual parcel for purposes of the ordi~ nance. I dat~ after the effective dale of the ordmance. Despite the reference to and description of lots Dwned sep- aratel}' at the time of enactment the court sa~d that the \'illage had further and mdependently im'oked a merger qualification, but thaI there was no indication in the ordi- nance whatsoever that an}' later ~om~lOn ownership could or would Impalr Dr. divest recognized and acolled n~hts established. The court :xplamed Illat it would ha\'c been SImple enough for the village t~stees to have pro....ided other. WIse. of the amendment by the owner's predecessor in title, who owncd the adjoining plot, consisting of three lots containing a lOtal area of 6,000 square fect, which he had acquired 6 years before lhe date of adoption of the amendment and upon which he had built a home, It appeared that, after acquiring the lwO subject lots, the owner's pre- decessor in title first sold his hom- esite and thcreafter sold the two subjecl lots, whose title the owner acquired 9 years after the date of adoption of the amendment. The zoning ordinance provided that. if a subSLandard plot is acquired un- , der any circumstances by an ad- joining owner. the said substan- dard plot merges in fee with lhe adjoining plot, and the substan- dard plot is no longer a buildable plOl. The court said that, although. at lhe time of t!le adoption of the ordinance, the area of the lots comprising the subject plot was less than lhe area prescribed b~' the ordinance and lhus qualified the 1015 for a nonconforming use as to area, neverlhcless. when the lots were acquired by an adjoining owner. the)' merged with such owner's adjoining land and, under Ihe provisions of Lhe ordinance. were required to be treated there- after as a single unil. Thus, the court reveTS ed the trial court and reinstated lhe determination of the zoning board denying the owner's application for a building permit. In Brum .... Conley (1990. Rl) 572 A2d 1332. the court held thaI the subjecL lots were not eligible for the excepLion to the minimum lot area requirement [or 110ncon- fomling lots, where the subject lOIS, although separately recorded before the effective date of, the ~ 40. Lot currently held' in com- !I1on ownership with adjoin- mg property Under the tenus of the ordi. nance al issue in the following cases, the court found that al- though, at the time of the ado~tion of ~he ordinance, the area of the subJec~ lots ''It'as le~s than the area prescnbed, thm qualifying the lots for a nonconforming use as to area, nevertheless, when the lots we.r~ .acquired by the owner of a~Jommg property. the}' merged Mth the owner's adjoining land an~ were r~quired to be treated as a smyle urut. The question in Faranda \' S~ho epflin (1964, 2d Dept) 21 A nlv 2d 801 250 NYS<Jd 928 PP , .., was w~e.rher the two subject lots, con- tammg a .cotaJ area of 4,000 square fe~t, . which were a permissible ?Ulldln~ plot under the town zon- Ing ordmance prior to its amend- ~ent pre~cribing a minimum build- l~g a~ea. 111 the particular residen- tial dlstnct of 10,000 square feet had merg~d i~ common ownership when theIr title was acquired 2 years after the date of the adoption 3. Lot Held in Common Ownership ,vith Adjacent Property as of Date Specified in Ordinance ~ 41. ln general [a] Pared divided by town bound- ary line For purposes of determining the slatus of a substandard parcel as a nonconforming use excepted from the minimum lot siz.e requirement of a zoning ordinance, the court in the following case held that the adjoining parcel in common own- ership. which was located across the boundary line in anolher mu- nicipalit)', need not be taken into accounl. . In Freihofcr " Lake George Town Bd. (1989, 3d Dept) 147 App Div 2d 865. 538 NYS2d 114, the court reversed the judgment of the lo\\'Cl" court and aUirmed the determination of the 1.0ning board of appeals that a building pennit to erect a single-family dwelling on the subject portion of the. parcel 635 t,~.. /.',t~ .~'j .' lli06/S8 FRI 16: 11 FAX 612 452 5550 CAMPBELL [4] 007 PLYMOUTH ZONING ORDINANCE -, 21025 of this Chapter. The Zoning Administrator shall make a determination that the building expansion will have not external negative im;:acts upon adjacent properties or public rights-of-way. a. Expansion of buildings found to be non-conforming only by reason of height, yard setback, or lot area may be permitted provided the structural non-conformity is not increased and' the expansion complies with the performance standards of this Chapter. b. Lawful non-conforming single family and two fanuly umts may be expanded to improve the livability provided the non-conformity of the structure is not increased. (2) Conditional Use Pennit. Lawful non-conforming commercial, industrial, public, semi-public, and multiple fami1y~tructure~ may be expanded on me same 10[ by conditional use permit provided: a. Expansion of buildings found to be non-conforming only by'. reason of height, ,yar~ and setback or lot areas are exempt from requiring a conditional use permit. b. Except for the above, the expansion will not increase the non- confonnity of the building or site. . c. The new building expansion will conform with all the applicable performance standards of this Chapter. A conditional use permit shall not be issued under mis section for a deviation from other requirements of mis Chapter. unless variances are also approved. d. The request for conditional use permit shall be evaluated based on standards and criteria set forth in Section 21015.02. Subd. 5 and Section 21015.04 of this Chapter. Subd.7. Non-Conforming Lots. (a) Vacant or Redeveloped Lots. (1) Lot Combination. If an owner has an interest iIi more than one (1) lot of record contiguous to other lots of record, all such lots shall be combined to meet the requirements of this section or the applicable zoning district standards. If sufficient contiguous property is held in one ownership to comply with the standard of the applicable zoning district, then those more restrictive provisions will apply. In no circumstances will there be approval of any proposal for 21100-4 11/06i98 FRI 16: 12 FAX 612 452 5550 PLYMOUTH ZONING ORDINANCE CAMPBELL [4J 008 multiple lot developments based upon lots of record, and not conforming with the provisions of the existing zoning district. (2) Single Family Detached Dwellings. Legal non-conforming> vacant, substandard sized lots of record may be developed for single family detached dwellings upon approval of an administrative permit by the Zoning Administrator, provided that: a. The lot in question was legally established in accordance with Chapter requirements existing at the time of its creation and is a separate, distinct tax parcel. b. The lot is properly zoned for single family land uses. c. Minimum Lor. Size. 1. Sewered ~~ record having direct access .to municipal sewer nd water shall be---s. nsidered buildable provided measurements for . area andlor wi are within seventy (70)' percent of the requiremen ~se z ning district. 2. Unsewered Lots. A lot of record not having access to municipal sewer and water shall be considered buildable provided it complies with Section 21115.08 of this Chapter. d. The lot in question has frontage on a public street. e. Public health concerns (potable water and sanitary sewer) can be adequately provided. .: f. The setback and yard requirements of the applicable zoning disr.rict or Section 21115.04 of this Chapter can be achieved while simultaneously resulting in development which complies with the character and quality of the immediate area and the objectives of the City's Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance. g. The lot in question and related potential development is evaluated based upon criteria outlined in Section 21015.02.. Subd. 5. and is found to be acceptable per these standards. (b) Developed Lots. An existing conforming use on a lot of substandard size and/or width may be expanded or enlarged if such expansion or enlargement meets all . other provisions of this Chapter. 21100-5 11706/98 FRI 16:12 FAX 612 452 5550 CAMPBELL ~I\SLn(\ e... 10-7 (G) Any structure which will, 'under this :ritle, become nonconforming but for which a building permit has been lawfully granted prior to the effective date of this Title or of amendments thereto, may be completed in accordance with the approved plans provided construction is started within six (6) months of the effective date of this Titk or amcndment thereof and continues to completion within one year. Such structure shall thereafter be a legally existing nonconforming structure. (H) . A lawful nonconforming use of a structure or land may be changed to a more restrictive nonconforming use. Once a structure or parcel ofland has been placed in a more restrictive nonconforming use, it shall not return to a less restrictive nonconforming use. (1) Nonnal maintenance of a structure containing or related to a lawful nonconforming use is permitted, including necessary nonstroctural repairs and incidental alterations which do not extend or intensify the nonconforming use. (1) Alterations may be made to a.building containing lawful nonconforming residential units when they will improve the livability thereof, provided they will not increase the number of dwelling units. (K) Improvements may be made to existing lawful nonconforming structures, provided that su~h .improvements shall not enlarge the structure by fifty percent (50%) or more. ' . (L) A nonconfom1ing use of a structure or land shall not be moved to any other part of the parcel upon which it was conducted or located at the time of adoption or amendment to this Title unless the movement will reduce the nonconfom1ity. ~: LOT PROVISIONY (A) A lot of record lawfully existing upon the effective date of this Title in an R Residential District which does not meet the requirements of this Title as to area or width may be used for a single family detached dwelling purpose provided the measurements of both the area and width are each within seventy percent (70%) of the requirements of this Title. The lot of record shall not be more intensively developed unless combined with one or more abutting lots or portions thereof so as to create a lot meeting the requirements of this Title. . (B) Except by the use of a conditional use peonit or planned unit development, not more than one principal structure shall be located on a lot of record. 10-7-4: ACCESSORY BUILDINGS AND STRUCTURES: (A~ No accessory building or structure shall be constructed on any lot prior to the time of construction of the principal building to which it is accessory. (B) No accessory building or structure shall exceed the height ofthe principal building or structure. However. in no case shall such a'ccessory building exceed twenty feet (20') in height in the R District. !4I009 3 "0_,> 11i061.98 FRI 16:12 FAX 612 452 5550 CAMPBELL 10-7 <8uxnj UL n.e. 2 ~-, 10-7-1: PURPOSE: (A) Excessive unifom,ity, dissimilarity, inappropriateness or poor quality of design in the exterior appeat'ance of structures and the lack of proper attention to site development and landscaping in the City hinder the harmonious development of the City, impair the desirability of residences, investment or occupation in the City, limit the opportunity to attain the optimum use and value ofland and improvements, adversely affect the stability and value of property, produce degeneration of conditions affecting the peace, health and welfare of the City, and destroy a pl'oper relationship between the taxable value of property and the cost of Municipal services. A primary purpose of this Title is to eliminate such problems. (B) The maintenance of certain standards is essential to insure compatible relationships between land uses within a community. All uses allowed, as either permittcd or conditional uscs within the City's various zoning districts, shat! confonn to the following general provisions and perfomlance standards. IO.7~2: NONCONFORMING USES AND STRUCTURES: (A) (B) (C) ~ E.~ccpt as othelwise provided in this Title, any structure or use: lawfully existing upon the effective date:: of this Tide may be continued at the siZE: and in a manner of operation existing upon such date. . Nothing in this Title shall prevent a property owner from putting a structure in safe condition after the structure has been declared unsafe by the Building Inspector. When any lawful nonconforming use in any district has been changed to a conforming use, it shall not thereafter be changed to any nonconforming use. Wheneycr a lawful nonconforming strLlcture has been damaged by fire, flood, explosion, earthquake, war, riot or .act of God, it may be reconstructed and used as before if it is reconstructed within twelve (12) months after sLlch calamity, unless the damage to the building or structure is fifty percent (50%) or more ofits fair market value as estimated by the Director of CommunitY Development and approved by the Council, in which case the reconstnJcted use must conform with the provisions of this Title, except that the owner may within six (6) months apply for a special permit for approval to reconstruct a nonconforming structure for its use prior to the damage. The Council may grant such pem1it providing the structure complies with other ordinance requirements. (E) Whenever a lawful nonconforming use ofa structure or land is discontinued for a period of six (6) months, any future use of the structure or land shall be in confom1ity with the provisions of this Title. (F) Any lawful nonconforming use of land not involving a structure, and allY lawful nonconforming use involving a structure, excluding signs. with an assessor's valuation upon the effective date of this Title of three thousand dollars ($3,000) or less may be continued for a period of thirty six (36) months unless it creates a safety hazard whereupon such nonconfomling use shall cease. 11)06/98 FRI 16:13 FAX 612 452 5550 CAMPBELL 141 011 !river Grove Heights Code 515.05, Subd. 2 Subd. 2. Non-Conformine: Uses and Structures. a. b. c. C0 Any strUcture or use lawfully 'existing upon the effective date of this se~tion may be continued at the size and in a manner of operation existing up'on such date except as hereinafter specified. Nothing in this section shall prevent the placing of a structure in safe condition when said strUcture is declared unsafe by the Building Inspector. When any lawful non-conforming use of any structure or land in any district is discontinued for a period of six months or is changed to a conforming use, any future use of said structure or land shall be in conformity with the provisions of this section. Whenever a lawful non-conforming structure shall have been damaged by fire,' flood, explosion, eart~quake, war, riot, act of God or similar occasion, it may be reconstructed and used as before ifit is reconstructed within 12 months after such calamity, unless the damage to the building or structure is 50% or more of its fair market value as estimated by the Building Inspector and approved by the Council, in which case the reconstruction shall be for a use in' accordance with the provisions of this section, except that where a structure is damaged more than 50% of its fair market value, the owner may within six months apply for a special permit for approval to reconstruct a non-conforming structure for its use prior to the damage. e. Any lawful non-conforming use of land not involving a structure, and any lawful non-conforming use involving a structure with an assessor's full and true valuation upon the effective date of this section of $1,000 or less may be continued for a period of 36 months and billboards as defined in this section regardless of their valuation may be continued for a period of 36 months after the effective date of this section, whereupon such non-conforming use shall cease. f. Any structure which will, under this section, become non-conforming but for which a building permit has been lawfully granted prior to the effective date of this section or of amendments thereto, may be completed in accordance with the approved plans; provided construction is started within 60 days of the effective date of this section or of amendments thereof and continues to completion within one year. Such struchm: shall thereafter be a legally existing non-conforming structure. '", 111061.98 FRI 16:13 FAX 612 452 5550 CAMPBELL l4J 012 Inver Grove Heights Code 515.05, Subd. 2 (g) g. A lawful non-conforming use of a structure or parcel of land may be changed to a similar or more restrictive non-conforming use. Once a structure or parcel of land has been placed 1n a more restrictive non-conforming use, it shall not return to a less restrictive non-conforming use. h. Normal maintenance of a building or other str1.lcture containing or related to a lawful non-conforming use is permitted, including necessary non-structural repairs and incidental alterations which do not extend or intensify the non- conforming use. I. Alterations may be made to a building containing lawful non-conforming residential units when they will improve the liveability thereof. provided they will not increase the number of dwelling units or bulk of the building except that a garage may be added if none previously existed. J. Pursuant to lover Grove Heights Code, Section 515.59. Subd. 11, upon. application by a property O\VI1cr or upon application initiated or required by the City, the City Council sitting as a Board of Adjustment and Appeals by majority vote may determine that the non-conforming use of a lot or structure is lawful and issue a non-conforming use certificate to ~e owner.. The Board of Adjustment and Appeals may ~nc;:lude in the non-conforming use certificate reasonable conditions governing the continued use of the lot or structur,e and may authorize accessory uses not currently on the propF;rty to be placed thereon in the future. A non-conforming use certificate shall not allow a principal use which did not legally exist on the property prior to the property becoming non-conforming. ~ Lot Provision. (Drd. 230; 8/25/75) A lot, being of record upon the effective date of this section and being presently in an "R" Residential District, which does not meet the requirements of this section as to area or width and does not have a structure thereon may be utilized for a single-family dwelling detached purpose provided the measurements of such area and width are within 70% of the requirements of this section, but said lot of record shall not be utilized for any purpose other than a single-family dwelling detached purpose unless combined with one or more abutting lots or portions thereof so as to create a lot meeting the requirements of this section; however, said lot of record shall be utilized as herein stated only where connection to the city utility system is possible. Subd. 4. Accessorv Bui1din~. a. No accessory building or structure shall be constructed on any lot prior to the time construction of the principal building to which it is accessory. 11/0b/98 FRI 16:13 FAX 612 452 5550 C. \-\- f-\ I-J t:r , \~...:..>~ ~ CAMPBELL !4I013 ZONING ~ 20-73 Cd) Full use of a noneonforming land use shall not be resumed if the amount of land or floor area dedicated to the use is lessened or if the intensity of the use is in any manner diminished for 8 period of twelve (12) or more months. Time shall be calculated as beginning on the day following the last day in which the nonconforming land use was in full operation and shall run continuously thereafter: Following the expiration of twelve (12) months, the nonconforming land use may be used only in the manner or to the extent used during the . preceding twelve (12) months. For the purposes of this section, intensity of USe shall be mea- sured by hours of operation, traffic, noise. exterior storage, signs, odors, number of employees, a.!1d other factors deemed relevant by the city. Ce) Maintenance and repair of nonconforming structures is permitted. Removal or destruc- tion of a nonconforming Structure to the. extent of more than ilfty (50) percent of its estimated value, excluding land value and as determined by the city. shall tenninate the right to con. tinue the nonconforming structure. (f) Notwithstanding the prohibitions contained in the forgoing paragraphs of this section, if approved by the city council a nonconforming land use may be cha1'lged to another noncon. forming land use of less intensity if it is in the public interest. In all instances the applicant has the bUl'den of proof regarding the relative intensities of uses. (g) If a nonconforming land use is superseded or replaced by a permitted use, the non. conforming status of tbe premises and any rigbts which arise under the provisions of this section shell terminate. COrd, No. 165. S 2, 2.10-92) ~ , \ Sec. 20.73. Noneomonning lots of record. (a) No variance shall be required to reconstruct a detached single-family dwelling located on a nonconforming lot of record or which is 8 nonconforming use if it is destroyed by :natural disaster so long as the replacement dwelling has a footprint which is no larger than that ofthe destroyed structure and is substantially the same size in building height and floor area as the destroyed structure. Reconstruction shall commence within two (2) years of the date of the destruction of the original building and reasonable progress shall be made in completing the project. A building permit shall be obtained prior to construction of tbe new dwelling and the new structure shall be constructed in compliance with all otber city codes and regulations. (b) No variance shall be required to construct a detached single-family dwelling on a nonconfonning lot provided that it fronts on a public ~treet or approved private street and provided that the width and area measurettlents are at lest seventy.five (75) percent of the' minimum requit-ements of this chapter. (c) Except as otherwise specifically provided for detached single.family dwellings, there shall be no expansion, intensification. replacement, or structural changes of a structure on a nonconforming lot. ^ (d) If two (2) Or more contiguous lots are in single ownership and if all or part of the lots / I do not meet the width and area requirements of this chapter for lots in the district, the Supp. No.4 1165 11/06/98 FRI 16:14 ~~ 612 452 5550 L tn- \ r.-....l \ '1'"' 1.-- ~ 20.73 CAMPBELL 141014 CHANHASSEN CITY CODE contiguous lots ahall be' considered to be an undivided parcel for the purpose of this chapter. Ifparl of the parcel is &old, the sale shall amstitute a s;U.created hardship under the variance p?'ovisionB of this chapter, (Ord. No. 165, ~ 2, 2-10-92) Sees. 20.'74-20-90.' :Reserved. DIVISION 5. BUILDING PERMITS, CERTIFICATES OF OCCUPANCY, ETC. Sec. 20-91. Building permits. (a) No pel'5On shall erect, construct, alter, enlarge, repair, move or remove, any building or structW"e or part thereof without first securing a building permit. (b) An application for a building permit'shall be made to the city on a form furnished 'by the city. All buildihg permit applications shall be a.ccompanied by 8 site plan drawn to scale showing the dimensions of the lot to be built upon and the sue and location of any existing structures and the building to be erected. off-street parking and loading facilities and such other information as may be deemed necessary by the city to determine compliance with this chapter and other land use ordinances. No building permit shall be issued for activity in conflict with the provisions of this chapter. The city shall issue a building permit only after detennining that the application and plans comply v.ith the provisions of this chapter, the uniform building code as adopted and amended by the city and other applicable laws and ordinances. (c) If the work described in an)' building permit is not begun within ninety (90) days or substantially completed within one (1) year following the date of the issuance thereof, said permit D:lB.y become void at the discretion of the zoning administrator upon submission of documented evidence. Written notice thereof shall be transmitted by the city to permit holder, stating that activity authorized by the expired permit shall cease unless and until a new building permit has been obtained. (Ord. No. 80, Art. III, ~ 4(3-1-4), 12.15.86) Cross reference-Tec:hhical codes, ~ 7.16 et seq. Sec. 20-92. Certificates or occupancy. (a) In accordance with the Uniform Buildin.g Code as adopted and amended by the city, a c~rtificate of occupa.ncy shall be obtained before: (1) Any nonagricultural building, except an accessory building, hereafter erected or structw-Ei11y altered is occupied or uaed; and (2) The use of any existing nonagriculturs.l building, except an accessory building, is changed. (b) Application for a certificate of occupancy shall be made to the city as part of the application for a building permit. A certificate of occupancy shall be issued by the city Supp. No.4 1166 11/06/~S FRI 16:14 FAX 612 452 5550 CAMPBELL ~onl~c\D0 ZONING ~015 accordance with the requirements of Section 19.52(d). The side setback. for such equipment over five feet in height above grade .shalf be not less than the required side setback of the principal building in the zoning district or ten feet, whichevet is greater. The rear setback for all such equipment shall be not less than ten feet Such equipment shalf not encroach into public easements of record. (6) Trash and recyclable material storage rooms, when fully enclosed with walls and roof and integrated with the principal building, are not permitted within a front yard and shall be located only in side and rear yards. Such storage rooms, when added onto existing principal buildings, may encroac.h eight feet into a required side setback and 12 feet into a required rear. setback, provided that a side setback of not less than five feet and a rear setbacl< of not less than 15 feet shall be maintained. Such features shall not encroach into public easements of record. (Code, 1958 S 5.06; Village Ord. No. 185,4-10-59; Ord. No. 54, 12-18--61; Ord. No. 65-44, 7-12-65; Ord. No. 71-69,8-16-71; Ord. No. 72-38, 7-17-72, renumbered to S 5.05; Ord. No. 78-73, 12-18-78; Deleted and added by Ord. No. 97-13, 4-21-97) Division D. E)(ceptions and Nonconforming Uses -~ SEC. 19.09. NONCONF:ORMING LOT~, When two or more lots located in the same use district, one or more of which lack adequate area or dimensions to qualify for a permitted or conditional use under the requirements of the use district in which they are located and are contiguous and held in one ownership, they shall be combined for use in order to meet the lot requirements by subdividing the property in accordance with the subdivision regulations of this Code. (Code, 1958 S 6.01; Added by Ord. No. 54, 12-18-61; Ord, No. 63-13. 6-24-63; Ord. No. 72-38,7-17-72) SEC. 19.10. NONCONFORMING USES. Except where otherwise specifically indicated, the lawful use of any land or building existing at the time of adoption of this Code or amendments thereto may be continued, even if such use does not conform to the use regulations for the particular district where located, subject. however, to the following provisions: (1) Enlaraement or alteration orohibited - Except for single-family residences in Industrial Zoning Districts and in Institutional Zoning Districts, no nonconforming use shall be enlarged, altered or increased. or occupy a greater area than that occupied by such use at the time of the adoption of this Code or amendment thereto. Any enlargement or alteration shall conform to the applicable regulations and standards of this Chapter. No enlargement or alteration shall be allowed or permitted if the cost thereof exceeds by more than ten percent the market value of the residential building being enlarged or altered or by the addition of a garage. The issuing authority shall determine the cost of the alteration and the value of the building which decision shall be final. (2) Movina of use orohibited - Such nonconforming use shall not be moved to any other part of the parcel of land upon which the same waS conducted at the time of the adoption of this Code or amendment thereto, (3) 1~rmination of use - (A) If such nonconforming use ceases for a continuous period of one year or if a nonconforming use is replaced by a conforming use, any subsequent use of the premises shall be in conformity with the use regulations spe.cified for the district in which such use is located. . (8) Where no enclosed building is invol'Jed and a nonconforming use has ceased for a period of six months, any subsequent use of the premises shall be in conformity with the use regulations of the district where located. (C) The following nonconforming uses of buildings, structures or land may continue for a period no longer than two years from the effective date of this Code or any amendment thereto which causes the use to be nonconforming. Every such nonconforming use shall be completely removed from the premises at the expiration of the two-year period: . (i) Any nonconforming use with a building or structure having an assessed valuation of $500.00 or less on the effective date of this Code or amendment. (ii) Reserved. (iii) Any nonconforming use of land where no enclosed building is involved or where the only buildings employed are accessory or incidental to such use or where such u~e is maintained in connection with a confonning building. 19-16 .c. . 11iO~1,98 FRI 16:14 FAX 612 452 5550 CAMPBELL l4J 016 BLOOMINGTON CITY CODE ~ (4) Destruction of use _ Any building which does not conform to the use in the district in which it is loeated shall not be rebuilt or reconstructed to its former use and physical dimensions if destroyed in value 50 percent or more according to the estimate of the issuing authority unless exception is made by the City Council. (Code, 1958 SS 6.01 - 6.05; Ord. No. 54, 12-18-61, renumbered to S 6.02; Ord. No. 70, 4-30-62: Ord. No. 101, 1-8-63; On:!. No. 64-51,6-22-64; Ord. No. 66-61, 10-3-66; Ord. No. 72-36, 7-17-72j Ord. No. 97-36, 8-18-97) SEC. '91' EXEMPTIONS FROM BULK SPACE PERFORMANCE. PARKING AND LOADING REGULATIONS. . (a) Lawfully existing uses and buildings otherwise conforming to the requirements of this Code shall be exempt from the following requirements only to the extent that they presently fail to conform to these requirements: (1) Building setback. (2) Minimum floor area. (3) Minimum lot area and width. (4) Number of principle buildings on a lot (5) Distance between buildings. (6) Pump island setback, (b) SUch useS and buildings shaH be exempt from the follOWing requirements only to the extent that it is physically impossi91e to comply because of existing improvements or property dimensions, or where a significant hardship is involved. (1) Number and location of parking and loading spaces. (2) Landscaping. (3) Minimum requirements of Section 19.61 (e) of this Chapter. . (c) A building .permit may be issued with the approval of the City Council to expand, alter, or repair an existing use that was a permitted or conditional use under the Zoning Code when originally built and is a permitted or conditional use at the time the application Is made, except where amendments to the Zoning Code have changed the performance standards or conditions for the use. Prior to approval by the City Counal, the application shall be reviewed by the Planning Commission for recommendation to the City Council. (Code, 1958 S 6.03; Added by Ord. No. 6345,10-21-63; Ord. No. 69-33, 4-21-69) ARTICLE II. ADMINISTRATION AND PROCEDURE Added by Code, 1958, 11-21-58 ~EC. 19.12. DEFINITIONS. The following words and terms when used in this Article, shall have the following meanings, unless the context clearly indicates otherwise: .' ~Qnditional use _ A conditional use is a use Which is generally not suitable in a particular zoning district but which may, under some circumstances and with the application of certain conditions be suitable. Rezonina _ Rezonin9s are actual changes in zoning or zoning boundaries. The procedures for rezoning 'and conditional use permits shall in all cases be in accordance with the provisions of this Article. (Code, 1958 S 9.01; Village Ord. No. 232, 6-10-60; Ord. No. 54,12-18-61, renumbered to S 11_01) SEC,19.13. INITIATING REZONING AND CONDITIONAL USES. The Planning Commission or City Council may Initiate a proposed rezoning cr conditional use pennil A property owner or representative of the property owner may request such rezoning or conditional use permit If it applies to his property. In such case the property owner or his representative shall fill out a Zoning Application Form, copies of which are available 'in the Department of Community Development. No. application for a conditional use permit or a rezoning of a particular piece of property shall be accepted more than once in any 12- month period except as follows: (1) Rezonlnas _ Applications which are withdrawn prior to action taken by the City Coundl. 19-17 ~ _L 5-8-3 5-8-3 (c) They must be jointly owned by all purchasers of lots in the subdivision or by all purchasers of non-riparian lots in the subdivision who are provided riparian access rights on the access lot; and (d) Covenants or other equally effective legal instruments must be developed that specify which lot owners have authority to use the access lot and what activities are allowed. The activities may include watercraft launching, loading, storage, beaching, mooring, or docking. They must also include other outdoor recreational activities that do not significantly conflict with general public use of the public water or the enjoyment of normal property rights by adjacent property owners. Examples of the non-significant conflict activities include swimming, sunbathing, or picnicking. The covenants must limit the total number of vehicles allowed to be parked and the total number of watercraft allowed to be continuously moored, docked, or stored over water, and must require centralization of all common facilities and activities in the most suitable locations on the lot to minimize topographic and vegetation alterations. They must also require all parking areas, storage buildings, and .other facilities to be screened by vegetation or topography as much as practical from view from the public water, assuming summer, leaf-on conditions. .'" / ...--- ( \ t ./ " (D) Placement, Design, And Height Of Structures: c.) 1. Piers And Docks: Setback requirements from the ordinary high-water mark shall not apply to piers and docks. Location of piers and docks shall be controlled by applicable state and local regulations. 2. Setback Requirements For Residential Structures: On undeveloped shoreland lots that have two (2) adjacent lots with existing principal structures on both such adjacent lots, any new residential structure may be set back from the average setback of the adjacent structures from the ordinary high-water mark or fifty feet (50'), whichever is greater, provided all other provisions of the Shoreland Overlay District are complied with. In no instance shall a principal structure be located in a shore impact zone or a bluff impact zone. 3. High Water Elevations: Structures must be placed in accordance with any flood plain regulations applicable to the site. Where these controls do not exist, the elevation to which the lowest floor, including basement, is placed must be determined as follows: I \ \. ,j age City of Prior Lake 1 \ ; 75' standard, such as 62 feet. If the Council chooses to adopt a setback greater than 50', the staff suggests the setback averaging option should also be included. C. Bluff Ordinance Requirements (Section 1104.304). The attached portion of "Statement of Need and Reasonableness for the Proposed Revisions to Minnesota Rules Parts 6120.2500-6120.3900" was prepared by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. This paper identifies the rationale for the bluff requirements of the model Shore1and Regulations. As previously noted, the City may not adopt less restrictive standards. However, the City may adopt a stricter standard than that included within the DNR rules. 1) Indemnification Requirements. This requirement is not included in the DNR rules. The provision was required by the City Council when the bluff ordinance was amended in January, 1998. This provision was included as a direct result of discussion with the City Council and the concern about City liability in the event of a bluff failure. The need for this indemnification is a legal issue which should be addressed by the City Attorney. 2) Side Yard Setback. As noted in the attached letter from Pat Lynch, DNR Area Hydrologist, side yard setbacks are not addressed in the model Shoreland Regulations. He also notes side yard setbacks are important on riparian lots to avoid a "wall effect" when viewing the lots from the lake. In terms of side yard setbacks and bluff requirements, the bluff provisions apply to all portions of a lot. 3) Aggressiveness of Provisions. In November, 1997, the Planning staff polled approximately 15 metropolitan area cities on their bluff regulations. Our survey indicated that most cities had the same or very similar ordinances (see attached memorandum dated November 24, 1997). The City of Prior Lake bluff ordinance, adopted in January, 1998, is more specific than other ordinances in the way it identifies the "visual break" rather than a standard 50' segment with an average slope exceeding 18 percent. The specific language in the City ordinance generally allows for a larger building envelope. The same is true of the requirement for a survey with l' contours. The l' increment provides a more precise determination ofthe bluff, and generally defines a larger building envelope. In return for a more liberal ordinance, the City requires an engineering study to determine the soil types and building requirements for a structure on a lot with a bluff. The purpose of this study was to ensure the new construction would not compromise the stability and integrity of the slope. This requirement was revised in June, 1998, to remove the engineering requirements on structures less than 480 square feet in area. As regards distance from top of bluff, the State rules establish a setback. The current ordinance follows the setbacks in the State rules. In order to vary from these setbacks, the City would have to pursue a modification under the flexibility provisions in the State rules. Staff has contacted the DNR to determine if they would consider relaxing the setback from top of bluff, but has not heard as of the date of this report. We hope to have a response by the date of the meeting. 1:\newzone\misc\respons3.doc 2 DNR WATERS "-- Fax:612-296-0445 Nov 5 '97 14:55 P.01/07 P06t-i~ Fax Note 7671 Dale I _1;- ~~~~ 17 To f7,fJ~./ "e V e.. F",m Y..cl' Ft1c.t'" Co.lCX:p:.,~ /. . /7./... Co. '7? '..".; !r.1fD-'d r 11tI.:" 1./ /"'1 I , ;' v' ...' . Pnone H G' /' -1 t/ / l"none 11/ ...-) _ ..., ,;,,; / ~. n ,r:, . ~ ('J / ~< .!?) / I;J (/? ~iq Fax # (., (7. -..1.('-117...- if.; t/f Fax:;l; Id-- _ ~ ~ t - cJ '-1'1-9 ---'--.. ~ - :--:-:;_...~~ -.....- ..~. ',-- . . . . "---' MINNESOTA SHORELAND MANAGEMENT PROGRAM: STATEMENT OF NEED AND REASONABLENESS FOR THE PROPOSED REVISIONS TO MINNESOTA RULES PARTS 6120.2500 - 6120.3900 MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES DMSION OF WATERS AUGUST 1988 DNR WRTERS Fax:612-296-0445 Nov 5 '97 14:55 P.02/07 these areas are usually already highly developed and the preservation of open space for on site sewage treatment systems is not necessary. Further, a 50 foot OHWL setback will reasonably allo~ for installation or preservation and maintenance of vegetation or other facilities that can intercept precipitation and filter or reduce surface water runoff velocities in theses developed areas, thereby addressing ~ater quality and quantity concerns. ...- -- : .;..... -.~ The setbacks from bluff tops for structures in all shoreland classes is needed and reasonable to protect bluff tops from ~ adverse environmental impacts of development and construction activities.. These impacts can be measured in both physical and aesthetic terms. Physically, development encroachment on bluff tops can lead to accelerated'soil erosion and in some cases, slope failure. Aesthetically, development encroachment on bluff tops can compromise or eliminate the natural appearance of this topographical feature in shoreland areas. ~he 30 foot structure setback from the bluff top provides a minimum distanc be e u n e anned or ro osed foundations; walls or eaves of a s ructure for the ma ~n ma erials durlng construction. Consequently, the preservation of soils can reduce or avo~d erOSlon prob an preservat~on an maintenance 0 ,vegeta ~on can protect ~oils, scree development and malntain the natural appearance of bluff areas. Necessary shoreland alterations such as clearing of vegetation to accommodate structures can be' conducted within the first 10 feet waterward of' the bluff top setback area until the bluff impact zone is encountered, yhich is defined as being 20 feet fro~ the top of the bluff and the whole bluff. (i.e., 20 feet plus 10 feet = 30 feet, the width of the bluff setback area). It is noted fo~ clarity that the bluff impact zone is established for reservation and management of shoreland ve etation an soils, and all s ructura develo ment .s exc . ded zone, except or stairways, lifts and landings. (see Item I of this subpart for stairways & lifts and see Item C of this subpart and Subp. 4 of Part 6120_3300 for additional discussion of bluff impact zones). The statements of need describing the definitions relevant to the above discussion of bluff setbacks a~d bluff impact zones are discussed below. SUbp lb. Blut~: The definition of a bluff is needed because of the new proposal to manage bluff areas in shoreland areas, as described in the statement of Need for bluff top setbacks and bluff impact zones. The topographic 28 DNR WRTERS Fax:612-296-0445 Nov 5 '97 14:55 P.03/07 features of a bluff need to be described in detail so shoreland managers, surVeyors, property owners and others can have a common understanding of the conditions that constitute a bluff. These descriptions are contained in items A through. D of subp. lb. The provision that a bluff slope:rise a~ ~east 25 feet aoove the ordinary high water level was developed by the Shoreland Management committee after a presentation by DNR staff and subsequent discussion about what the appropriate height limitation should be for these regulations. A consensus was reached that 25 feet was appropriate because areas less than,_.g2.._f.,::et in height do not have as great a potential for signi~~~4rlt slope erosion and failure problems. This value is supported by research indicating a strong relationship between erosion and bluff height ~hen the bluff height is greater than 18' for historic bluff recession on Lake ontario (1)*. Recognizing that these rules are in~ended for substantially smaller lake systems than Lake Ontario, the intent is not to extrapolate from that research. Instead, the Lake ontario research is mentioned to indicate that the 25' height value as derived by shoreland commit~ee members and based on their professional experience is realistic and reflective of documented research- Additionally, committee members agreed that shoreland topographic features of less than 25 feet in elevation are not as visually signiiicant as those areas that are 25 feet or more above the waterbody. average reasona l. or Where soil erosion and stability are not issues, as would be the case if rock outcroppings comprise a bluff, a 30% s~ope *See page 31 for references. 29 DNR WRTERS Fax:612-296-0445 Nov 5 '97 14:56 P.04/07 1- combined with a 25 foot or more vertical height does constitute a prominent topographical featur~ that requires management to preserve the natural scenic values of shoreland areas. It is also reasonable to require that a bluff slope must drain to the waterbody, thereby excluding areas that meet the slope and height requirements of a bluff within shoreland areas, but effectively may have no potential for negative impacts on shoreland values. Finally, it is necessary to exclude from the definition of a bluff any areas that 1nclude lands that have average slopes of 18% or less for 50 feet or more between the top of the bluff and the toe of the bluff (as defined later in this document), since these areas could qualify for building sites if the ordinary high water level setback can be met. 8Ub~ lC. Bluf! Im~act Zone: This definition is needed to describe the extent of the bluff impact zone, an area that is proposed to be managed for the protection of vegetation, soil and aesthetic resources within shoreland areas. It is reasonable to manage ~hese areas to ensure that development. activities will not involve significant vegetative clearing and soil disturbance or disruption of scenic vistas as viewed from the surface of a ~aterbody-' Vegetation is important to' bluff stability in four ways: it directly removes vater from the soil layers; the root systems hold soil in piacei vegetation.softens the impact of raindrops which otherwise can jar loose soil particl.es; and, vegetation slows runoff and filters' out suspended sediments. (4) Therefore, defining the pluff impact zone as the bluff plus 20 feet from the top of the pluff will reasonably achieve the obj ective of managing' ,the bluff feature for soil and ve~etation protection in shoreland areas. SUbD. lab and lac_ Toe of the Blu!! and ToP of the Blu!!: These definitions are needed to aid in the definition and field location by shoreland managers and surveyors of the pluff and bluff impact zone as defined and discussed earlier in this document. The text ofH 50-foot segment" and" an average slope exceeding 18%" were derived after detailed discussion Py members of the Shoreland Committee to refine the definition of a bluff as proposed in earlier rule revision drafts. The definitions are reasonable because prOfessional surveyors and planners (Minnesota Land Surveyors Association and Minnesota Planning Association) participating on the committee felt that these definitions in combination with the definitions for bluff and bluff impact zone ~ill enable the accurate location and mapping of pluff features in shoreland areas for planning and development activities. 30 DNR WRTERS Fax:612-296-0445 Nov 5 '9? 14:56 P.05/0? *References for ~luff discussion: ~. Drexhage, T. and Calkin P.E. (1981), "Historic Bluff Recession Along the La)ce ontario Coast, Ne... York, II New York Sea Grant Institute. Albany Ne... York. 2. Personal communication ~ith Dr. Tuncer Edil, Department of civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Wisconsin-Madison. spring 1986. 3. Yanggen, D.A. (1981), "Regulations to Reduce coastal Erosion Lossesll, pg. 89 IN: Bluff Slumping, Proceedings of the 1982 Workshop, Romulus, Michigan, February, 1982. 4. Tainter, Suzanne P. (1982) "Bluff Slumping and Stability: A consumer's Guide", pg. 6. Michigan Sea Grant Program, Ann Arbor, Michigan. . J............ ...... Item B, which addresses requirements for. elevation of structures to prevent flood damage, contains several proposed rewordings of existing requirements, a new provision for lakes ...ith extreme water level fluctuations, and a ne~ provision for water-oriented accessory structures. The introductory language under this item has been rewritten to make it. briefer and clearer. It requires' structures to elevated consistent ~ith local flood plain ordinances ..here they exist. As ...ith the current rules, where local ordinances do not exist several approaches are presented (subitems 1-3) for determining the appropriate structure elevation. A ne'" phras8; has been added to reference the possibility of floodproofing certain structures rather than elevating them on fill, as an introduction to the specific requirements for water-oriented accessory structures under subitem (3), as explained below. subitem (1) has also been also been rewritten. A statement has been added to authorize local officials, when they deem it prudent, to require structures to be elevated higher than the standard elevation requirements on lakes that have a .history of extreme water level ~luctuations. In recent years, due to an extended, mUlti-year yet cycle, a number of lakes in the state have experienced extended, extremely high water levels that have damaged and destroyed hundreds of shoreland dwellings. Glacial lakes without outlets are particularly susceptible these extreme fluctuations. A good description of this sort of problem may be found in Chapter B.of "Reducinc; Losses in High' Risk Flood Hazard Areas: A Guidebook for Local Officials" by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, 1987. 31 " DNR WATERS Fax:512-295-0445 Nov 5 '97 14:55 P.05/07 state law now requires Minnesota communities to .maintain eligibility in this program. since federal regulations for the program require all structures, including accessory structures to be 'protected, it is now prudent for local shoreland controls to require elevation or floodproofing of water-oriented accessory structures. A additional benefit is the lower flood insurance premiums property owners will pay if these structures are protected to federal requirements. In view of all the above, it now is reasonable to include better standards in the state rules regarding(...the management of boathouses and other structures located near the shores of public waters. One important improvement is the inclusion of standards to prevent future flooding of these structures. Proposed revisions to this Item and the above- described-sub items will require boathouses and other ~ater- oriented accessory structures to be elevated properly to prevent flood damage. subitem (3) proposed language would allow such structures to be flood-proofed (constructed pf ~ater-resistant materials) rather than elevated on fill in appropriate circumstances. This will make such structures much more convenient to use for their intended purposes than if they were elevated several feet on fill. However, it also makes them more vulnerable-to damage from ice and wind action than elevated structures, so a caution statement is also presented for situations where long-duration flooding is likely (i.e_ lakes without outlets). The statement in item C regarding bluff impact zones is needed to ensure that structures or accessory facilities are not placed within the bluff impact zones. It is reasonable to exclude stairways and landings from this provision'since stairways and landin~s are facilities needed for achieving access up and down the steeply inclined areas associated with bluff areas. (Provisions for their installation are included elsewhere in these rules.) Exclusion of all o'ther structures and facilities from bluff impact zones is necessary because of the accelerated amount of erosion that often accompahies development here and because these areas are typically unsuited to development by nature of their steepness, soil type or because the placement~f development can substantially alter the natural appearance of bluff features in shoreland areas. Not allowing development in these areas is reasonable since the natural resource values of shorelands will be protected. 33 DNR WRTERS Fax:612-296-0445 Nov 5 '97 14:57 P.07/07 The statement in item D regarding steep slopes is needed to require local governments to evaluate the potential erosion impacts to shoreland areas and subsequent sedimentation and degradation of wa~er bodies that may result from the development of steep slopes. It is reasonable to require that conditions "be attached to the issuance of shoreland development permits on steep slopes if the .proposed development is determined to have potential for creating soil erosion or visual impacts as viewed from the surface of the water. Additional reasons for the proposed treatment of steep slopes as a special management area is justified by review of existing county soil survey documents. These documents show that generallY, steep slopes are prone to soil erosion or stability problems and care should be taken when developinq in these areas. -:,,~.").. Item E is needed to ensure that development does not encroach upon unplatted cemeteries protected by Minn. stat. Sect. 3p7.08. It is reasonable to require that permission to construct within 50 ft. of such sites be obtained from the state Archaeologist Office since that office is responsible for comprehensive statewide management of such sites. Further, it is reasonable to prohibit the placement of structures on significant historic sites, since the construction activity and placement could adversely affect the values of the site unless and until appropriate information is collected at the site. The state Archaeology Office requested a provision of this order to ensure that future development activity yill be sensitive to preserving and protecting cultural resources o~ this nature. In item F only two minor editorial types of changes are proposed. tem G provides provisions for the height of structures. The Shoreland committee decided that a structure height standard should only apply within residential districts of cities, and that it should not apply to churches. The committee also decided that, since ~any cities use the Minnesota state Building Code (based on the national Uniform Building code), the method used to determine heights of buildings should be the same as in these codes- They therefore decided to include a definition of lIEeight of building" as presented in these codes. Since the current rule has a height limit of 35 feet and this definition uses an approach which results in a'measurement which only goes part yay up pitched or hipped roofs, the Committee decided to change the maximum height limit to 25 feet. 34 ~I u~. I M'iv StaR." 119 yty.-tap ! ".~t .,L il .~ .1 , "getl' ~ Program into City, County financial documents the intersections: . Commerce/Boudin and TH13 . CSAH 23/TH 13 and Five Hawks . 150th and TH13 . Main Ave/CSAH 44/TH13 . TH13 Trail . CSAH 12 and Trail nnnn................... ... ...... .................................. ....................................... n.... n. ................ n... .................... .......... .......... ....................... ........ Complete 1999 Public Improvement Dec. '99 2000 ..!:.~~j~.~~~......................................................................................................................................... ................................................... Complete Official Map of Ring Road Nov. '99 Nov-Dec '99 May '99 Done Done Done Conduct business visits (EDA) in July '99 Done conjunction with the Chamber of Commerce. .................................................................................................................................................................................................................. Identify and correspond with residents who Sept. '99 Nov. '99 are business owners to encourage relocation of business into Prior Lake. .................................................................................................................................................................................................................. Provide annexation recommendations to April '99 Dec. '99 City Council. Complete Downtown Redevelopment Study Oct - Dec '99 Dec '99 and begin implementation of recommendations. ........ ...................................................... .................................... .............. ...... ........................ ................. ........... .......... ..................... ......... Support private, commercial and/or multi- on-going on-going residential housing project for Downtown. FIRE Provide recommendations regarding cost Nov '99 with 2001 Budget effectiveness for Fire Inspection programs ..f.~~..~.~.~!~.i.~.9~..~.~~.~J?~.~!!g..~~~9t~.9.~~.ig~~:.................. .........hm..nmmm.............. ...............................mm.............. ..!3~p.I.~~~..~~.~.~.~.~.~~~~~.............................................mm.m.mnm mn..J~.~.~...'.~~.......... ...............~.~y.:...'.~.~................ Update at least one fire prevention section Dec. '99 June 2000 in the City Code. PARKS Finish construction of Library/Resource Sept '99 Done Center ............ .................................................... ...................................................... ................. ........................ ........ .......... ........... .......... ............ ..g~.~p..I.~.~.~..~~.~.~~~~~~.i.~~..~f...~.~.~.~.f.~~.~.~..~.~~~nm.mm. m.m....~g'!......~.~........... m.......n~.~~~..?9.9.9.mmmm. Acquire final property needed for Athletic May '99 Dec '99 ..~~~!?~~.~:.............................................................................................. ....................mn..........................................m..n.................. Complete plans and specs. and solicitation June '99 Busse - Done of bids for two athletic complexes. Other - June 2000 I :\FRAN K\NOTES\99\ WKAGDA. DOC "~'fv M I ~iv ~.~If tm""IIMp/ \4'~t\Ml,: Apll Update major chapters of Police Policy Dec '99 Done manual. ...................................................................................................................... ......................................... ................................................... Implement Civilian Policy Academy. Designed, Dec '99 Report Approved & Budgeted Oct. '99 .................................................................................................................................................................................................................. Evaluate sports utility vehicles as squad June '99 Done cars. ...................................................................................................................... ......................................... ................................................... Evaluate City time spent on Dakota April '99 Done Community police and fire services as part of contract renewal process. Implement Geographical Information July '99 Done ..~.Y..~.~~.~:..n.mmmmmm.................nmmmn..........m..m.m.n.................. .................m......m.n............................................................ Design and inspect all 1999 public on-going on-going improvement projects. n!.~.~~~~~~..~~.~..!?~~~~~~..i.~.P.~~y~~.~~~..P.~gJ.~~~:n......... .n........ry1.~y...:~~.......n.. .........n.......p.~.~~n.m..nmmm ..!.~.P.!~~.~~~..~~~.i.~.~..q~~!.~.~.~~~:......................................... ...........~.~y.:.~.~........... ........m...?.~.~.~.~~~9................ ..!?~~~~..~~~~.iy.i.~.~?~..9.T.~.~~~.~g~.:........................................... ..........P.~~.:.~.~....m.... .............~.~.Y...?g.9.g............. Update 2020 Comprehensive Plans May '99 Nov '99 ..!.~.P.!~~~~~..X~.~E.?g.9.g..~g.!~~~~~.~:..........nn..n.mmnmmm nn.....n~.~.~..:.~.~........... ..........n....~.~y..'.~~................ ..~~~.~.9.~~~~~~..~.~~!~..:!Y..F..~~.~.~~!~~..A9.~:...................... ..........P.~.~..'.~.~........m ..........9.~y.~?y...:~~mn...... Coordinate Community Survey May '99 Done I :\FRANK\NOTES\99\ WKAGDA. DOC Motor Vehicles and Traffic cattle lot unless it is on a public roadway, properly equipped, licensed and operated by a duly licensed operator in accordance with Minnesota Statutes Chapter 169. No off-road vehicle may be operated on public property other than a public roadway or on private property without the written permission of the owner or possessor of land on which it is being operated, except a recognized motorcycle club may, by prearrangement with the City Council, make other arrangements which will be satisfactory to the City Councilz. No motorcycle races or races between off-road vehicles will be permitted anywhere in the City without the written permit from the City Council. 903.400: ApPLICABILITY OF PROVISIONS: Nothing in this Section shall be intended as a prohibition against the operation of legitimate farm machinery, construction equipment, lawn mowers, garden tractors, gasoline powered cement mixers, air compressors or similar equipment; provided, however, that operation of a gasoline or combustion engine between the hours of ten o'clock (10:00) P.M. and six o'clock (6:00) A.M. Monday through Friday; ten o'clock (10:00) P.M. and seven o'clock (7:00) A.M. on Saturday and from ten o'clock (10:00) P.M. and eight o'clock on Sunday shall be illegal without a written permit from the City. 903.500: PROHIBITED OPERATIONS: The operation of any combustion engine for purposes of harassment of any resident of the City is prohibited, and no such engine shall be operated so as to create load and excessive noise or in any way to unduly disturb the peace and privacy of the residents of the City in such a manner as to create a public nuisance thereby. It shall be illegal to operate any combustion engine or off-road vehicle in a careless, reckless or negligent manner so as to endanger any person or property of another, or to cause injury or damage thereto. It shall be illegal to operate any off-road vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor, narcotics or habit forming-drugs. No person shall permit a use of his premises or his property by any off-road vehicle or combustion engine in violation of the provision of this Section or the statues of the State. The owner or person in possession of the premises shall be deemed to have permitted the use, as specified in this subsection, under either of the following circumstances: ~ If said owner has granted written permission to the operator; or ~ A parent permitting the use of property by a minor child in violation of this Section. 2 See also Section 803 of this Code and subsection 902.200. City of Prior Lake 903/p2 m 'LEMKE CHIROPRACTIC 5116 Gateway Street SE Suite 202 Prior Lake, MN55372 Telephone (612) 440-2225 August 2, 1999 ~~@ @.~ D\V @-,\R'\'~\\ \1\ f\ If Ii I'll 'U :i " \~~l m; - 2 1999 M Mr. Steve Horseman City of Prior Lake 16200 Eagle Creek Avenue SE Prior Lake, MN 55372 Dear Steve: In response to our recent telephone conversation, I submit the following correspondence: As I had previously related to you, I am concerned about the permit requested by the Wild's Golf Course. As a homeowner living along the course, it seems unreasonable for me that the course would be able to begin motorized equipment usage at 5:00 AM on Saturday and Sunday. As I stated, I also felt that this was inappropriate during the week. You related during our discussion, that I had signed some papers as had other homeowners authorizing them to do this. We were unaware of this at the time of the signing. This letter is my requesting the appropriate member of city government to evaluate the need for the course to begin motorized equipment usage at 5: 00 AM on the weekends. There is ample time for the club to perform their necessary duties during the week and in fact, are able to complete those duties during the day. This is purely a preference item for them and not necessary for the performance of their business. You can imagine the difficulties of living just a few feet from tractors and lawn mowers which often times take up to 45 minutes, right outside your bedroom window. We have a newborn son who is being affected by this as well. So to reiterate, while it is my position that 5:00 AM is an unreasonable time for any of this .activity, it is certainly unreasonable on a Saturday or Sunday when the activities that they are performing at this time could be performed throughout the day and during week day Page 1 AUG-04-99 WED 11:53 Paul Lemke D.C. / July 29t.n, 1999 ste\E! Horseman Prior Lake City Ser.Acas Pr10r Lake, MN 55372 Mr. Horseman: I YIOuld like to express my deepest concern regarding the noise pollution in my neighborhood created by The Wilds GOlf Clut) during the wry early morning hours. Albeit, golf courses need constant attention to maintain grounds, it seems elCcessiw and Inappropriate to operate extremely noisy equipment during earty hours of the morning within a certain proximity of our homes_ It is not unusual to be shaken out of sleep at 5:00am to the noise of hes\"{ equipment and tractors clamoring down the fairways and adjacent property, which I might add, is pri\6te property with no trespassing signs and goes completely unnoticed to tM grounds crew and their superJsors, e\E!n after repeated requests to KEEP OFF! This situation f'las come to you at this time, because it seems my concern as a homeowner has gone unnoticed and without resolw, ewn after a number of complaints to Mike Regan and Jim stanton, owners of The Wilds. Can the city help us? COUld you please clarify the restrictions regarding operation of hes\"{ equipment, the hours of its use, and its rele~nce to the city ordinance regarding noise control? Your attention to this matter would be greatly appreciated by all who lIw in our neighborhood and surrounding communi1y. Please feel free to contact me during the day at 612~938-8909 x 954 or awning at 612-445-8839. Sincerely, . Julie Cleary Homeowner ((! ~: .1 ~ ,/ <' I] t:' ';- ) -f' ~~ i)'- i/0( fl/I') cf- I 6124402255 P.02 RUG 11 '99 11 :'04Rr1 THE WILDS GOLF CLUB P.3/3 1flEWL1>, .. GOLF CLUB August 11" 1999 City of Prio.r Lake Steve Horsman 16200 Eagle Crf?ek Avenue S~ . Prior.Lake, MN 55372 Dear Steve/ . . The purpose of-this letter is to request a permit to 'operate combustion engines on the Wilds Golf Course property outside of the hours specified in the CitY of Prior Lake Ordinance 95,-11, Chapter 3, Section 4. , . , In order to 'op~te the course o~ a profitable basis, we n~d -to' begin mowing operations :by 5 :00. am. May 1 -' SepteJ:nber 15. Then from March 15 - April 30 and agairi in the month of October, ' we would start at 6:00 am, 7 days a week. 'We ,perform coun;e ItJaintenarice on a. daily basis in tront ~f the first group of players. Our maintenance crews start on the 1st and the 1 (Jill hole one-:. ' h~lfhour before the 151. tee time. The -golf holes ar~ mowed in order in front of the players. . , Our normal play schedule has all players b~ginning from the 1$1 tee tim~ at 6:'00~, Our : maintenance crews n~ed a 'one-half hour head start on the players in order to stay ahead ofplay. On days that we schedule an 8:00 am shotgwl start, oUl.'mainten!Ulce crews'start offboth sides at 5:00 am in order to have the entire course' mowed by 8:~0 am. We have 1O~20 8:00 am shotguns scheduled yearly on a random ba,sis. The 5 :00 am starting time of our maintenance crew is nonnal for a golf course operatiOn; many courses start even earlier. . . '.' , " , .' Homebuyers at the Wilds understand the maintenance requirements on' the golf. course, and ' . starting times are not an issue with ~e,overWhelming majority oftbe IFsidents. Residents'who have pUX'chased property in the Wilds P.U.D. are subject to "-:me First':Am~ded Declaration of Co'Ven~ts, Conditions, and, Restrictions" for the Wilds. Within thes~ covenants property owners have granted The Wilds Golf Course an easeI?eTIt t~ subject all or any portion of the properties, 'to nuances incidental. to the m.~.intenance,. operation, or use of the golf course.. " " 1bank You., .. AV~ Michael O. Regan General Manager -' . cc: Frank Boyles Susan Pace .3151 W.'L..DS RIDG,E: · PRIOR LAKE:. MN 55372' · ~ I <!'.445:.3'500 WWW.GC)LFTHEWILOS.COM . . . FAX.e..2.445.6.3Z0 .,,,,',:._. .",,;LiN, 15 ': ""71':Z-A,::'.,;;/ ," ..,-,.-','.,-" ,...'.....,...,,: .:..'.:--.~_'/,' ",' . ":.:..~ "-',. ~. / / '99 03:54PM THE WILDS GOLFCLOE AMENDED DECLARATION OF COVENANTS, CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTION FOR THE WILDS P.2/3 This Amended Declaration (the YDcdarationl) is made this 31st: day of Julv . 1995, by The Wilds Homeowners Asso::iation (the "Association"). The Association ioteoos by this DecIMation to impose 00. the Properties (8.5 defined henin) mut.ually benefieiaJ restrictions under a gClXfal plaD of improvc:meot. for the benefit of all owners of residences within the Properties. The Associatioa desires to provide 3. flexible and reasonable proo:dure for the overall development of the Propenies. aed to establish a method for the admini:untion, mainteDaDcc. use and enjoy meat of such property as is now or hereafter subjected to this Declaration. The Association Ilcn:by declares that this Declaration amends and replaces in its ellti.r=ty that certain Declaration of CovenaDb, Conditions, ResuictioILS and .Reservations for Th~W. tc.d November 16, 1993, filed for record on November 17, 1993. as docum 325071, and that all of the Properties and any additional propertY hereafter subje chis Declaration by SuppJemental Dedantion (as defined herein) shall be held. sold and conveyed. subject to the following easements. ~5tric:tions, coveoant! and conditions which arc for the purpose of p~ting the value and desinbiIity of and which shall run with the pr~ subjected to this Declaration and which shall be binding on all parties having any right.. title or inleresl in the . Properties or any pan thereof, their heirs. sU!XCSSot'S and assigns, and shall inure to the benefit of each ownc:r therc:of. 1. DEFIN1110NS. 1.01 II Additional Lacd' means the additional property subject to the Declarant's unilateral right of JMc:wiOD as provided. in Section 9, which property is more particularly described. on the aUa.ched Exhibit B. 1.02 .. A~a of Common Rc3ponsibilityN mean! the Common Ar=, together with those areas, within or upon a Parcel, the maintenance. repair or replacement of which is the responsibility of the Association. Pllc. , 355988 ~/ ~a 9' 071795-3 alr::.z: or ~z i:CJl':T lIu:llOU ~ccr.: C;::l;5.-:-. 1U.:iI.III~SOl:A 1~41 r~f"ar ;~jlrd. P~t ~li:II&II. ~\IU.y R8ClH'Q1I.l' ~ =-g\l:.7 li:J6/SEP 23 '99- 01:28PM-tHE-WILDS GOLF CLUB Df<EIER CJIl.I":t:'" P.2/3 li:J4 damage the primary use of the Par~ls or Common Area so affecred and the utility lines and installations shall be removed by che Golf Course and aU damage repaired promptly upon conch,J.sion of each such tournament'llnd special event. 13.04 Right of Enuy. The Association shall have the right, but nOt the obligation. to enter upon any Parcel for emergency, ~.;;urlt.y. ~nd safety reasons. to perform maintenance pursuant to Section S, and to inspect for the purposesnof ensuring compliance .....ith this Declaration, any Supplemental Declaration. che Byla..s. and rules, which right may be exercised by any member of me Board. the A.ssociation, its officers. agents. employees. and managcrs. and aU policemen. fll'-emen. ambulance personnel. and similar emergeney personnel in the performance of their duties. E1Ccept in an ernergency situation. entry shall only be during reasonable hOLlrs and a.fter 1'lotice to the Owner. This righc of enuy shall include the right of the Association to enter upon any Parcel to l;ure an~ condition which may incl"ease the possibility of a fire or Olher hazard in th~ event an Owner fails or refuses to cure the condition within a reasonable ti~ after requested by the Boar-d. but shall not authorize entry into any single family dwelling without permission of the Owner. except by emergency peno . g in their official c:apaciues. 13_05 ecial Events_ Each Owner. by acceotancc of a. deed to a Parc:el. aelen es ~at the Private Amenities within or ad'acent to the Pro nies ma include ~olf caUT5CS. cultural activities and ~arious other activities. and mat evenls. such as golf tournaments. concerts and other speeial events t'nay be held within me Private AmenitiC$. Each Owner a.cknowledges that such events mI.)' result in nuisances or hazards to persons and property on or in me vicini[y of such activities and events. J;ac::h Owner and occupant of the Properoes. a.nd each person \&slng the Properties, covenants. on behalf of himself. his heirs. successors, and suc.:essors-in-tide, that he shall assume all risks associated _irh his use and ownership of property in The Wild$. inclu.ding but not limited ~. the ri$~ Qf pX"Qpe('ty damage or personal injut}' arising from or incidental to such events and shall indemnify and hold harmless the DeclBZ'ant and the A.ssociauon. and their respective officers. tr'ustc:c:s and Members, in their capacities as such. from any liability to persons using me Owner's Parcel for claims. damages or e,.;,penses. including attorneys' fees. arising from 01' incidental to such spec;ial even~. Each Owner further covenants ancl ut'ees that an\' Person owning or operating an)) .v e rneni shall a.\I the ri ht in the naNre of an easement to sub 'cct all or an portion of the Progetties to nuisances JnCI cn to e malntenanc;e. operation. 01' lJie of such Jiil:olf courses and to the carrying out of .!l s ecia! events. Notwithstandinglthe above. any Person engaging in suc:h 1111 eVl:nts aU re:$peCl neig~bc;:t-:ing 38 85/SEP 23 '99 01:29PM THE WILDS GOLF CLUB DREIE:R P.3/3 as residential properties in scheduling and hOlding(~~'Ch events as n disturb Owners anel occupants of the ncighborint .1 p('opc . L we. &.,.,. + r.U1r. a.$'.I\G.Lf~ 13.06 Parking fol" SpegiaL Evenu. The owners of me Private Amenities. their operators and [heir members (regudless of whether such members are Owners he.-eunder). guests. invitees, employees. agents. and contractors, shall at all times have a right to park their veb.ic:lI~$ on the roadways within the Properties at reasonable times before. during. and .ner golf tournaments, coneens and other special events held by/at me Private Amenities, subject to any loc:al regulatioms and ordinances. d.I s.h.&..r b c.......... ~ ~ ~a:.., e"'eA'\~ 13.07 Easements for Cross-Drainage. Every Parcel and the Common Area shall be bl,l~t::ned wich easementS for natural c;irainage of stOrm water runoff from other portions of' the Properties; provided. no Person shall alter the natural drainage on any parcel so a~ to materially jnc:rCla~e the drainage of stonn watc:r onto adjacent portions of the Properties without the consent of the Owner of the affected pJ'op~ny. .. 13.08 Euement for View Corridor.s. The Declarant. its successors and assigns, the Association and the NCe shall have thc right and authority, but n.ot the obligation, to designate, c::.srablish a.nd pror.ec.t areas within the Properties as view corridors within which any construction.. planting at' tho plac;cmen, of any strUcture may be cestricted or prohibited. The Declarant hercby rca.uovel for itself. its suc:cessoJ'S and a:;~i&ns, thl; Association and th~ Nee an e4il:acment over all the Properties, including the airspace, for r.he desi3nation. establishment and protection of such view corridors. l3.09 Eas~rnent for Perimeter Wall. Thl: DecLarant hereby reserves for itSelf and the Association. and cheir respective successors Bnd auigns. an easement upon. across. over and under a strip of land 15 feet in width located &long the rear lot line of &11 Pareda tb., (;:ons~t:u.te pan of the perimeter boundary' of Th~ Wilds for the purpose. or constrUCting, replacing. repairing and maintainill8 a perimeter wa.ll or fo~ aroLLncI The Wilds. provided tha[ De.c;:larant shall have no obligation to construct such a perimeter wa.ll or (ence. 13.10 Golf Cart Path Easements:. The Declarant, the Association, and the N~ighborhood Association may establish solf cart pach casements ""ithi.n..1he~rop~tties to be used for golf cart paths. pedestrian walkWays, main~nanc:& and 'ltehicle acc:ess, and unhindered access between the path5 and the Golf' Cour5e_ No~ng shall be placed or maintained in any golf cart path easement which shall interfere with the utiliz.ation lhereof as a playtible pan of the Ciolf COllue, and all landscaping and other 39 INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM To: FRANK BOYLES CITY MANAGER BILL O'ROURKE FROM: DATE: OCTOBER 1, 1999 SUBJECT: MOWING OF GOLF COURSES At your request I have spoken to a number of people in the golfing industry regarding the care and maintenance of golf courses. I have also checked with city officials around the metro area to see if they have encountered similar issues. As you may know, The Wilds was recognized in a recent Star Tribune poll (April '99) as number 1 in a listing of the "Top 10 Public Courses" in the state, and as number 6 overall in the "Top 10 Minnesota Courses". Furthermore, The Wilds has been in a Golf Digest magazine listing as on the top 100 public courses in the United States for the past three years. This recognition comes for a variety of reasons, including the fact that it was designed by nationally known golf course architects and because the tees, fairways and greens are maintained to a higher standard. The Wilds is very much an upscale public course that offers its customers the feel and conditions of a private club. This obviously comes with a cost. As stated in the letter from General Manager Mike Regan, they are finding it necessary to begin their maintenance operations by 5:00 a.m. during the summer months to stay ahead of the first tee times. I have found that this is quite common at courses throughout the area. I have been told that ". . . hardly anyone waits until 6 am" (manager of Baker National Golf Course) and that mowing typically begins between 5 am and 5:30 am, with crews starting on the greens and tees at the front of the course and getting ahead of the first golfers. The greens and tees at all courses, not just premier spots like The Wilds, are done everyday. Typically the fairways can be done every other day and maintenance of the roughs can require cutting for 10 hours per day, 5 days a week. All of these operations are significantly impacted by moderate amounts of rain. The manager of the Stonebrooke Golf Course, in Shakopee, told me that they have had very few complaints regarding their maintenance operations and that their covenant with the home owners, as spelled out in their PUD, covers such occurrences. I was told, by more than one source, that the City of Victoria has exempted the Deer Run Golf Course from their 7 am restriction on the operation of power lawn equipment, etc.. However, the Deputy City Clerk for Victoria, Sherrie Jones can find no resolution addressing this issue. I have also checked with officials and course managers in Brooklyn Park, Woodbury, and Edina, each of which has at least one golf course community. None of these have had the operation of lawn mowing equipment as an issue, even though they do typically get out ahead of the first tee times. MEMORANDUM DATE: TO: FROM: RE: September 3, 1999 Don Rye, Planning Director Steve Horsman, Zoning Administrator 01:k:- Parking area on Fairlawn Shores public right-of-way (14960 Storms Circle) cc: Frank Boyles, City Manager Jane Kansier, Planning Coordinator Sue McDermott, Asst. City Engineer Upon inspection of the property at 14960 Storms Circle, it appeared the property owner had constructed a parking area in the back yard and public right-of-way along Fairlawn Avenue. The parking area measured approximately 50 feet wide at the street and 16 feet deep at the center and tapering back to the street on both ends. The area is paved with concrete and a boulder retaining wall approximately 4 feet high at the center that steps down two feet along both sides to termination. Stone steps access the parking area on one end and rise to the to the principle structure on the property. Written notification was mailed to the property owner regarding apparent city code violations. I received a phone call from the property owner Steven Montreuil and he explained to me how he had been in contact with Verlyn Raaen in the City Eng. Dept. and received a fax from him on 9/18/98 regarding the conditions for the construction of the proposed driveway (see attached copies of fax transmission). I discussed the issues with Engineer Sue McDermott and Building Official Robert Hutchins and we determined the boulder retaining wall would not require a building permit but impervious surface calculations would be required and the driveway width and area in the public right-of-way needs to be addressed. A meeting was scheduled with the property owner and the City Engineer Greg IIkka, and Assist. City Eng. Sue McDermott. We determine9 that the area did not appear to pose a hazard to the public safety and the main issues were the use of the public right-of-way for a private parking area, the potential for damage to parked cars at times of snow removal and the eventual removal of a portion of the parking area for City improvements to Fairlawn Shores. The project had been completed so the city staff decided to discuss the matter further prior to rendering a decision and to respond in writing to the owner at a later date. I conferred with Don Rye and Greg IIkka, we determined the best course of action would be to require the property owner to sign the Engineering Departments "Hold the City Harmless Agreement" for potential damage to vehicles and the parking area for required maintenance and improvements to the public right-of-way. The property owner shall also verify impervious surface conditions of 30% or less and correct if necessary, and to correct the driveway width to 24 feet in the right-of-way and limit use to temporary parking of personal vehicles in this area. Mr. Montreuil has been given written and verbal notice regarding the conditions for maintaining this driveway/parking area in the public right-of-way (see attached notice). He intends to reply in writing regarding the chain of events that led to the apparent violations as they exist today. In his opinion he contacted the City and constructed the driveway/parking area within the perimeters he was provided. 2 ~' ~c ~ . IMPERVIOUS SURFACE - The portion of a buildable parcel which has a t covering which does not permit water to percolate into the natural soil. I' .. Subject to the following exemptions, these structures and materials shall .' constitute impervious surfaces: Buildings; Paved Driveways' and . Walkways of 'greater than three feet in width; Paved Patios; Covered ~ SE s::: Decks and other Structures. The following structures and materials shall ~ ~ CO be exempt from the calculation of impervious surface: Decks or Patios .. which are open to the sky and have open joints of at least 1/4 inch (3) feet in width or less. All such structures and materials shall be to documented by a Certificate of Survey unless exempted from this ~ '" requirement by the Zoning Administrator. ::I I · ~ ~ INTENSIVE VEGETATION CLEARING - The complete removal of 'trees or ;::s shrubs in a contiguous patch, strip, row, or block. ~ . - ~ _,. ~IGHT MANUFACTURING - The processing and fabrication of certain materials q. ~ 1. ".~ pollution, fire hazard or noxious emission which will disturb or endanger ~ ~i' iSle: ' ~ neighboring properties. , .~ LIMITED RETREAT - A private, multipurpose environment for use by individuals \> and private groups for the purpose of conferences, workshops, seminars, j , f'C\ ~ s:::: ~ meditation or training sessions. For the purpose of these regulations, a ~1\. limited retr.eat shall not include restaurants for the general public, nor be ~ t' eligible for a liquor license. (Ord. 86-09) - ~ . hOT - A piece, par<;:el or plot of land occupied or capable of being occupied by ~ . '. one or more structures and intended as a unit for transfer of ownership. ~ ~ .~ r LOT. CORNER - A lot situated at the junction of and abutting on two or more i ~ . ~ . . intersecting streets. ~ ~ 1 f~ LOT OF RECORD - Any lot which individually or as a part of a subdivision has..... ~ .~ 1 been recorded in the office of the Register of Deeds of the County. U\ ~t::!" LOT. DEPTH OF - A mean horizontal distance between the front and rear lot S ~ " ~. lines. ':t ~ ~ ~ ~1 LOT. MINIMUM AREA OF - The measurements of a lot computed exclusive of I .... \R \3 ~ any portions of the right-of-way of any public thoroughfare. , , ~ LOT. WIDTH ,OF - Dimension of lot at front setback line and if app!icable, at the ~ ~ i ordinary high water level. C ..{; ~ moorings for boats and offering other supplies and services accessory to ~ '" the principal use. (Ord. 83-6) ~ ~ "'W" ~~ ~ANUFACTURED SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING - A structure, transportable in 'J- ~ ~ ~. '::3 one or more sections, which in the traveling mode is eight (8) body feet or ~ '<) c::.s more in width or forty (40) body feet or more in length, or when erected on ~. t ~ site is three hundred twenty (320) or more square feet and which is built .~ ~ en a permanent chassis and designed to be used as a dwelling with a '~ permanent foundation when connected to the required utilities and ~ indudes plumbing, heating, air conditioning and electrical systems C\ Section 8, Page 5 to ---- ---- ---- .~ --------- I't~ . .. R" 33\.66--- ____ ___ ..lJtfflJtO \7 _ L:90.QO - -- (.,~ I '_,-... ,1:~~~''----1 I ."5'32'5"/ 't;;.~,,---~ & S~~~' T r:~ Fu, : \ I I ./ I 4./e~:~/" /.!li<- ---- ____ r{ E: S - _____ S'I \ I " / \ ----!!!..5.00 ~f ) I ~. I I ..,/ ^ \\ 1'19(/1 -;;;.~ -----.____ N7'<< ' -z~ I ~ :gl /Ol ~,~ V1U "i~1J1 /1 7 ___1/ ~\"& \08\ ~ ~I ~ ,~ ;, iJ/rr. / \ \ ~ t,(f1 r--:----!~ I f.. ~l -2, p\ "-2 (' $; -2~ 41$~/ \t'l.:~\~ '0 ;,o//{/ 1<1975 S~~I "'--..0".". _~~ : ~\J \ I I I I / $1'{ \" ~ 4j^~ 9;) ~/ ;"t . ~ I I ---.::.. --- "-( \ / I \\ \ 14f'/' '-',. l ' \ \ I I / I / / \ ~~~I~/ / ('\ K II&; II 1 \. '\ I I - I L I L- 57. 3 ~ 0 I \_-1 \._--1 LWESI-J _--1 ( l ;.) 00'31'44" (~- C ~ :~~~O 46.00 eo.oo 65.00 eo.~~'O~ 0 ~~ ..;' rz,f::! . ~".s-<? (~~;_ I I :--1 II BWEST1\ iLl ~L-w9--!s: MCI/i..R"NcELSE'b~~-wEsT--J ~\I~ ;> I I I _"8.25__ ':> 0 ~: _ _ ~"--- _ I \g ~I /.d' Is "'I ~oll~ I ~~ ~$~~~'~i"g I I \ j IS I~ ~I ~ I~ ~I I~ ZI:! gl ;.~~ ,Jl~" ~~ ~I \8 I '. I ~ I I~ <?~~'" I rv\{- 1'-1 A':J . , IS I I I: I Q I '" )>~'" \. I \J I ~ I I J L I L__-.J L______./ " : \~----___J I___J eo.oo 80.00 - eo.oo 143.00 _ _ " \. 126.21 eo.oo -.... ~- \J \ ,; - - - ---~~sei"- 150 TH ~:li.~~~ \\rr=:~~.~~ STR EET tl"90DOO'OO) lft " 90000' 00" '''V'-' ~-' 100 plat ~93.68 meas;-- I -~~ "" .. j --, '-(~ ). / L_ .!~ ' : ;s'//. < ~<;rCb 1~, f:'D ;'/IS ~ a ~?,~i.., " ....~.. .. <?~ :<' ;::iW:}~t>.> I. ~ I \ '.:....---175,3.60----- I...----,-q cc-, \.. EAST '-) , I , L L_ , South IIn. or GOV'I~~.C 25 -115-22 (F) I ~IJ :~ I I (..':;, (... -r' _ I I....I\./ I f I .> ~/ ,;/ / fA' \[ ((; " ../ 0-:--;''' ficKet No: 452833 3end To: CPRLKEOl Seq No: LORQ ROUTINE 3 Map Ref: Transmit Date: Jriginal Call Date: NorK to Begin Date: 9/17/98 9/17/98 ~/21/98 T i.m e : Time: Time: 8:58 am 8:00 am 8: 15 am Op: tanya Op: tanya :ompany LANDSCAPE JUNCTION :ontact Name: DUANE J ~lt. Contact: DAVE F Phone: (612)985-7625 Phone: fype of Work: INSTALLATION OF RETAINING WALLS ~ork Being Done For: STEVE MONTREUIL ~xplosives: N Duration: 2 DAYS R. O. W: Y 3tate: MN County: SCOTT Place: PRIOR LAKE CITY :Wd~"ess-:--- ,14960- Stt"~t: St'Or~'m' s Ci....~ SE ~earest Intersecting Street: 150th St _ocation of Work: MARK ENTIRE LOT. ~emarks: CALLER REQUESTS AREA BE MARKED WITH PAINT AND FLAGS ::CALLER STATES THIS IS 1998 HUDSON PG:134 GRID:1~A -wp: 115N Rng: 22W w p : Rn 9 : _e gal Gi ven: :PRLKEOl MDWCBL02 Sect -Qt r~: Sect-Qtr~ : 36-NW, 125-SW,36-NE, 125-NW MINGAS02 MNVAEC01 SCTRTLOl /1/175" {WcJ-lj VYl~J b e. ()~.f ~;r ~".) IJ Sh~rt.S Tr.) f -. 3- G '" ---- .--- ---... JJOTI' .)/ " ~,\ ---- -- 11l'i1~1 '" I~I '1 '"'1 . - _._~....::-, ':~-"'-~';"-"~~'" "~-"- -.,' .',-,'." - ,;, Stephen Montreuil 14960 Storms Circle Prior Lake, MN 55372 Dear Mr. Montreuil: The City Engineering and Planning Departments have completed inspections of your driveway/parking area constructed on your property and the public right-of-way on Fairlawn Shores Trail. The City has determined that you appear to have exceeded the maximum allowed impervious surface coverage of 30% for your lot area (City Code 1104.306, former code 5-8-3-8). In addition, the driveway exceeds the 24 foot maximum width (City Code 1107.205, former code 5-5-5-0). Finally, the driveway/parking area creates the potential for damage to vehicles and the parking area from required City maintenance and improvements to the public right-of-way on Fairlawn Shores Trail. This office would like to solicit your community spirit in correcting the apparent violations as follows: (1) provide the required impervious surface calculations by a registered land surveyor to determine compliance, and if non-compliant correct the violation; If compliant, (2) construct a driveway bullnose divider to reduce the maximum width to 24 feet, and allow only temporary parking of vehicles in the public right-of-way (no permanent storage); (3) sign written acknowledgment holding the City harmless for potential damage to your property from maintenance and improvements to the public right -of-way. The impervious surface calculations shall be completed on or before September 10, 1999. If this date is not achievable or should you have any questions regarding this matter, please call my direct phone number at 447-9854 between 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, and I will assist you. Enclosed is a copy of our City Code pertaining to your apparent violation. Thank you for your cooperation. Sincerely, 111 Ccr;;:: ~~ S{v~ ~~~man Zoning Administrator c: Don Rye, Planning Director Sue McDermott, Asst. City Engineer Jane Kansier, Planning Coordinator 16200 ~AAN&~ Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER