HomeMy WebLinkAbout8A - Hillcrest Homes
Di~Y
STAFF AGENDA REPORT
AGENDA #:
PREPARED BY:
SUBJECT:
8A
JENNITOV~PLANNER
CONSIDER APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION #97-XX
DENYING AN APPEAL OF HILLCREST HOMES
FROM A DECISION OF THE ZONING OFFICER
RELATING TO BLUFF AND TOP OF BLUFF
DECEMBER 1, 1997
DATE:
INTRODUCTION:
Hillcrest Homes is appealing a decision of the Zoning
Officer relating to definition of BLUFF and TOP OF
BLUFF.
DISCUSSION:
Section 5-1-7 Definitions of the City Code reads as
follows:
. BLUFF: A topographic feature such as a hill, cliff,
or embankment having the following characteristics
(an area with an average slope ofless than 18
percent over a distance for 50 feet or more shall not
be considered part of the bluff):
(A) Part or all ofthe feature is located in a
shoreline area;
(B) The slope rises at least twenty five feet (25')
or more above the ordinary high-water level of the
waterbody;
(C) The grade of the slope from the toe of the
bluff to a point twenty-five feet (25') or more above
the ordinary high-water level averages thirty
percent (30%) or greater; and
(D) The slope must drain toward the waterbody.
. TOP OF THE BLUFF: The higher point of a fifty
foot (50') segment with an average slope exceeding
eighteen percent (18%).
Planning Department interprets the definition of bluff as
follows:
1:\97files\97appeal\97-110\97-110cc.doc 1
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
I:\97fi1es\97appeaI\97-110\97-1IOcc.doc
· Part or all of the feature is located on a riparian lot.
· The slope rises at least 25 feet or more above the
OHW, anywhere on the slope and any distance from
the OHW. On Prior Lake, this means the slope
rises to at least 929.0 elevation on any part ofthe
slope on the lot.
· The grade of the slope from the toe of the bluff to a
point 25 feet or more above the OHW averages
30% or greater. On Prior Lake, this means that the
grade on the slope from the toe to 929.0 elevation
or greater is greater than 30%. This can be any
distance from the OHW.
· The slope must drain towards the lake. Slopes
draining away from the lake are not considered
bluffs.
. Another significant factor in determining bluffs is a
grade of 18%. The definition oftop and toe of bluff
are the highest and lowest points of 50 foot
segments with slopes exceeding 18%. It is our
interpretation that the entire 50 foot segment
with a slope exceeding 18% is part of the bluff,
with the highest point being considered the TOP
OF BLUFF. Because the definition of TOP OF
BLUFF and TOE OF BLUFF do not specify which
50 foot segments or which slopes, the top and toe
can be located anywhere on the slope, no specific
distance from the OHW. The definition of TOP OF
BLUFF determines what is considered part of the
bluff and what is not.
Exhibit A is a diagram of this interpretation. Exhibit B is
how this interpretation relates to the specific lot in
question.
Hillcrest Homes contends that because the definition states
"... an area with an average slope of less than 18 percent
over a distance for 50 feet or more shall not be considered
part of the bluff" that this area is removed from the slope
before a determination on top of bluff is made. Then,
when the determination for top of bluff is made, this area
cannot be a part of the top of bluff because it has been
eliminated by definition. Exhibit C is Hillcrest Homes'
2
1:\97fi1es\97appeal\97-110\97-1IOcc.doc
interpretation and Exhibit D is how this interpretation
affects their specific lot.
In meetings on October 4, 1997 and October 22, 1997, the
DNR has given staff their interpretation of the definition of
Bluff and Top of Bluff. The definitions that the city has
adopted are the same as those in the 1987 DNR Shoreland
Management Regulations. The DNR has concurred with
the Planning Department staff interpretation. Attached is a
written response affirming their position.
Staffs conclusion is that the statement about not including
areas with slopes less than 18% is meant to allow
construction on flat areas of lots where there may be
multiple bluffs. When the top of bluff is determined to be
the highest point of a 50 foot segment where the average
slope exceeds 18%, the area downhill from the top of bluff
must be part ofthe bluffby definition.
The Planning Commission, after much discussion, felt the
definitions were ambiguous and cumbersome. The minutes
of the meeting are attached. Upon considering staff
interpretation of the ordinance as written, they felt staff
interpretation was correct. They directed staff to work with
the applicant in composing revised definitions and setbacks
to be clear, specific and easily understood. This is to be
considered with the revised Zoning Ordinance.
Staff has worked with the applicant to write revised
definitions. Staff, as well as the DNR, feel the proposed
language is more concise and open to less varying
interpretations. Attached is a copy of the proposed revision
discussed at the Zoning Ordinance public hearing on
November 24, 1997.
The Planning Commission felt the proposed bluff language
was concise and less open to varying interpretations. The
Planning Commission recommended the revised bluff
language be incorporated into the Revised Zoning
Ordinance. There are a few different items yet to be
resolved with respect to the Revised Zoning Ordinance. A
continuation of the discussion will take place in December.
The revised bluff language will be brought to the City
Council as part of the Revised Zoning Ordinance to be a
topic at the December 8, 1997 council workshop.
3
Additionally, the Planning Commission heard a variance
request from Hillcrest Homes to the bluff and top of bluff
setback, as written in the existing City Code. The proposed
variance places the proposed home at the same bluff
setback as the proposed revised bluff language. While the
Planning Commission empathized with the applicant on the
timing of the proposed amendment, they felt the hardship
criteria were not present with respect to the property. They
also stated that it would be improper to grant a variance
based on an ordinance recommendation yet to be approved
and adopted. If the variance to bluff and top ofbluff
setback is appealed by Hillcrest Homes, the Council will
hear the variance appeal in late December or early January.
ISSUES: The City Council must determine if they agree with the
staffs interpretation ofthe ordinance. The issue here is not
to determine where the applicants feel the bluff is and the
setbacks are in relation to the proposed house, but to
determine if staff interpretation of the City Code is correct
as written and adopted by the City Council.
ALTERNATIVES: 1. Uphold the decision of the zoning officer by adopting
Resolution #97-XX.
2. Uphold the position of the appellant and direct staff to
prepare a resolution with findings supporting such
action.
3. Other specific action as directed by the Council.
RECOMMENDATION: Alternative #1, to uphold the decision of the zoning officer.
ACTION REQUIRED: Adoption of Resolution #97-XX affirming the decision
of the zoning officer
1:\97fi1es\97appeal\97-1 10\97-1 10cc.doc 4
RESOLUTION 97-XX
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL UPHOLDING THE RECOMMENDATION
OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION IN THE MATTER OF AN APPEAL BY
ffiLLCREST HOMES, INC., OF A DECISION OF THE ZONING OFFICER RELATING
TO BLUFF AND TOP OF BLUFF,
MOTION BY: SECOND BY:
WHEREAS, the Prior Lake City Council conducted a hearing on the 1st day of December,
1997, to act on an appeal by Hillcrest Homes Inc. of the Zoning Officer's
interpretation of definition of BLUFF and TOP OF BLUFF and
WHEREAS, the City Council reviewed the definitions of BLUFF and TOP OF BLUFF as
written and adopted in 1995; and
WHEREAS, the appellant has not set forth adequate reasons for overturning the decision
of the Zoning Officer; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has recommended the City Council uphold the
decision of the Zoning Officer:
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOL YED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF PRIOR LAKE:
FINDINGS
1. Hillcrest Homes Inc. appealed the decision of the Zoning Officer relating to the
interpretation of BLUFF and TOP OF BLUFF as described in Section 5-1-7 of the City Code
in order to permit a future residential dwelling on property located in the R-l (Suburban
Residential) District and the SD (Shoreland Overlay) District at the following location, to
wit:
16091 Northwood Road, legally described as Lot 92, Northwood Road.
2. The Planning Commission reviewed the appeal as contained in Case File #97-110, held
hearings thereon on November 10, 1997, and recommended upholding the decision of the
Zoning Officer.
3. The Prior Lake City Council reviewed this appeal on December 1, 1997.
4. The City Council has considered the effect of overturning the decision of the Zoning Officer
upon the health, safety, and welfare of the community, the existing and anticipated traffic
conditions, light and air, danger of fire, risk to the public safety, the effect on property values
in the surrounding area and the effect of the appeal on the Comprehensive Plan.
1:\97fi1es\97appeal\97-11 O\ccres.doc P~g~ 1
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
LLLL
OLL
Z:)
0""
_an
~LL
~O
<cwo.
'.... ~ 0
- a:....
an
:E ~ C
X-ZZ
Wu- -~
LLLL
LLLL
i!:)
(/)~
%8l NtfH.L H3.Ltf3HS t
3d01S H1.IM 1.N3W93S .DS
:J:J (179 :J 0 J:2Hid .10 N. \\
%8l NtfH1. 5S31 ~
3d01S H1.IM 1.N3W93S .DS
~
-
c:t.
~~
cl 0
<->i=
-
11')<
t- -
luU-
\3:)~
~(l
u.tt
u-:;;)
"::)...s
-J~
-D
u.
cf')O
-
:t:
r
"'"
~ LEh
~
\.YO
0'0
, f:J ;<:
(:)
~
(-;J' b'f. b'~
.
80b
t,Pb
Q'4
~ II,
~/t6
hll, _
.s'6
t7;'b
{'I,
<f'6
t, 6
o~6
1~6
i:: r" b
f-,~b
S'El-
'?'eb-
(Eb
I~ 8t:b-
'!'~b
c;fb
diEb
'='
V)
UJ
~
o
....J
Cf.)
~,-
I
In
N
~o
:..'N
f/
o
q>
p\c m
~
'='
~
In
-
(:)
,...
~Ob
~.., ...
In
" <:>
, -
, ' ,
"
o
,...
In
-
o
N
In
N
0 0
V) (")
In
(')
0
~
in
~
~'iQ
It)
In
In
o
CD
It)
CD
o
"
~
"
o
CO
In
CO
o
0')
- '0
In _
,,0) ,I
in
.0
o
,...
LlI LlI
a. a.
0 0 "#.
..... "#.
CI) -I co
co CI) ,...
~ ,... ~
:f!: 2:
i ~ ~ ~
..... .... t- ....
~ CI) 2: a:
~ t3 ~ ~
C) -I C) ~
LU
CI) UJ a:
CI) Cl
0 <r- 0 =9
it) '0
NOT 'PA-RT
EXHIBIT C
HILLCREST HOMES. INTERPRETATION
OF BLUFF AND TOP OF BLUFF
......
'J
~
fY)1't)
<t-, r., t)-
'IT'" '" .....
a-tI}() ....
<:r- "I (f-. ~J
e- '11 ():,
~
o F 6LL>F~_
...
u
r--
M
Ir
-~
['<,
0--
~25'
')
I ).. \ "
"
.1 20'
15'
10'
i 5'
50' , ..;
30'
90' 85' 80' - 75' 70' 65' 60' 55' 56"
C(.
Cl,
~
~
~
()
Q.
;!.
.
. -r t-\ \ S e LV F F M f ETS
c..,,-,Tgtz,tA of BL.ufF
DBy,,vITIO,v
"
fll ~
- I C- "5 In
~ nr :r-
0-- '11 rt)
0- " Ir
()- 'I ~
0- J a
r~ '"
0- ...
(}.~
r}:"
,;::. ~~ L,
~ 0: 2:'
"'r,)
~~
<1- ~ !? L'
... ;! f\;.
'0 -,
C7' (:~I j
605k
0&
I ~Ol->
~
"
'n ~J
I) :t-
lJ'o <J
(to OHVv
(I-
30' 25'. 20' 15' 5'
10'
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
Metro Waters - 1200 Warner Road, St. Paul, MN 55106-6793
Telephone: (612) 772-7910 Fax: (612) 772-7977
November 7, 1997
Mr. Don Rye
City of Prior Lake
16200 Eagle Creek Avenue, S.E.
Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714
RE: INTERPRETATION OF BLUFF DEFINITION IN SHORELAND AREAS
Dear Mr. Rye:
Oflate, we have had a great deal of discussion regarding bluffs within shoreland areas of the City of Prior Lake. This
discussion has included the bluff failure which occurred earlier this year, as well as number of potential and proposed
developments on lots where bluffs are present.
The City of Prior Lake has adopted language, from Minnesota Rules, defIning bluff, top of bluff, and toe ofblufJ. I
have reviewed the City's ordinance, and have met with City staff to review the administrative procedures used to
determine top and toe of bluff for specifIc projects. While the language in state rule is admittedly a bit cumbersome,
I concur with the manner in which the city is administering the ordinance as it pertains to bluff determination.
The intent of the regulations limiting development on and within the bluff and bluff impact zones is to ensure slope
stability, and to preserve the natural appearance of these topographic features in shoreland areas. The 30 foot structure
setback from the top of bluff provides a minimwn distance between the bluff top and the proposed building site for the
maneuvering of building materials and equipment during construction.
If the existing definitions of bluff, top of bluff, and toe of bluff, as adopted, are deemed difficult to efficiently and
effectively administer and enforce by city staff, the DNR would entertain, under the flexibility provisions of the
Shoreland Rules, alternative defInitions, provided the original intent of bluff protection is not compromised.
If you have any questions, please call me at 772-7910.
Sincerely,
~~~~"
Patrick J. Lynch-rtl
Area Hydrologist
c: Ed Fick, Shoreland Hydrologist
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
~., Minimum of 107< Post-Consumer Waste
PROPOSED TOP OF BLUFF AND BLUFF SETBACK EXAMPLE
i
,
!
I_
i ~ 40'
I (j-l ,
1 ,-
I ~'
-30'-
:.:
o
"ct
~
lU
CI)
CJ
~
Q
....,
r-- 5
lY\ Ql .s
II- ['oJ
Q--
if)
IV)
tr
11.2%
, I
25'
14.3% .
-25'
"20'
15'
- 10'
i 5'
I
55' .~
SO"
95'
1 00'1" ~ '\0' 90'
80" 75' 70' 65'
60'
tt
:)
~
~
Q.
E
.....
u
~
I"r)""
0"-. ~ t)-
o <r- ~ .....
ll" t<) Q ......
q- "" (r.. lo
G- '1J Oc>
,It- f'>.
, ~
'j
"
I'll ~ V,
0'- 'l' flf
ll" 0-- :,--.
'1l 'f) rr
0- I)
l}_ '" -
0'- 'i'l
'"
Q
ft .....
0- ...
o-.~
i:,....
ct:. ~L,
ll" 0:: ~
O'-I't)
~~
"'::0
0-,1/'.
...: fo,
(\ t.....
a- 'J? ~
'0
0-
V)
<l
Il'
....
u
';to
Q
(roo 0/1 vJ
! j ,
I !
:/
30' 25'" 20'
10'
5'
,
, I
PROPOSED TOP OF BLUFF AND BLUFF SETBACK EXAMPLE
I 0' 95' 90'
I 10 , r ~ :10',
'j
. ,
70' 65'
fJ
~
E--.
f}j
&
Q
::3
::::J
a:,
If:
.:j
~
~
~
t:::,
~
e
'"
;;-
" 0- '
"~
,~
....
~
)-
().
"
tl
"
)-
0-
....
lJ
-.9 '\
ct ht'
cf \
0% q-' &0\ ..
C\...\~
<\v\?
.I.
"I C\ ~ \
55'
.....
U
:)-
Q
II'- D/ivJ
12%
..-~..----
25'
,)
"
'f~'1 el
! .
,!&f ~I
h.
"
1-
,
-i
!
'1~" ,1
I
\- -
qoll{ cl
"'1 fl
, I
40'
25',-- 20'
3D'
60'
5'
10'
October 31, 1997
Hillcrest Homes
Attn: Chris Deanovic
14122 Louisiana Avenue
Savage, MN 55378
RE: Bluff Interpretation
Dear Mr. Deanovic,
In regards to your recent inquiry as to what constitutes a bluff, the following are
definitions as cited from Section 5-1-7 of the City Code.
. BLUFF: A topographic feature such as a hill, cliff, or embankment having the
following characteristics (an area with an average slope ofless than 18 percent
over a distance for 50 feet or more shall not be considered part of the bluff):
(A) Part or all of the feature is located in a shoreland area;
(B) The slope rises at least twenty five feet (25') or more above the
ordinary high-water level of the waterbody;
(C) The grade of the slope from the toe of the bluffto a point twenty-five
feet (25') or more above the ordinary high-water level averages thirty
percent (30%) or greater; and
(D) The slope must drain toward the waterbody.
. TOP OF THE BLUFF: The higher point of a fifty foot (50') segment with an
average slope exceeding eighteen percent (18%).
Planning Department interprets the definition of bluff as follows:
. Part or all of the feature is located on a riparian lot.
. The slope rises at least 25 feet or more above the OHW, anywhere on the slope
and any distance from the OHW. On Prior Lake, this means the slope rises to at
least 929.0 elevation on any part of the slope on the lot.:
. The grade of the slope from the toe of the bluff to a point 25 feet or more above
the OHW averages 30% or greater. On Prior Lake, this means that the grade on
the slope from the toe to 929.0 elevation or greater is greater than 30%. This can
be any distance from the OHW.
. The slope must drain towards the lake. Slopes draining away from the lake are
not considered bluffs.
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.L Prior Lake. Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQCAL OPPORTCNITY EMPLOYER
HHI
HILLCREST HOMES, INC.
16714 Jaguar Ave., Lakeville, Minnesota 55044
(612) 898-7663 Office (612) 898-3364 Fax
'~ Builder Driven By Quality Crqftsmanship and Value."
Date Nov. 3,1997
Jennifer Tovar
Planner
Dept. Of Planning and Zoning
City of Prior Lake
16200 Eagle Creek Ave.
Prior Lake, MN 55372
Dear Jennifer:
Hillcrest Homes, Inc., wishes to appeal the staff interpretation of "Top of the Bluff" and.the
resulting impact of the staff interpretation on our property at 16091 Northwood Road. As cited
from section 5-1-7 of the City code the definition ofa bluffand "Top of the Bluff' are.ils follows:
BLUFF-A topographic feature such as a hill, clitf, or embankment having the following
characteristics (an area with an average slope ofless than 18 percent over a distance for 50
feet or more shall not be considered part of the blutl):
(A) Part or all of the feature is located in a shoreland area:
(B) The slope rises at least twenty five feet (25') or more above the ordinary high-
water level of the water body; .
(C)The grade of the slope from the toe of the bluff to a point twenty-five Jeet (25')
or more above the ordinary high-water level averages thirty percent(30%) or
greater; and
(0) The slope must drain toward the water body.
TOP OF THE BLUFF- The higher point of a fifty foot (50') segment with an average
slope exceeding eighteen percent (18%).
The. definition clearly states that " an area with an average slope of less than 18% over a distance
of 50' shall not be considered part of the bluff'. The 50' segment between the 9338.1ld94f
elevation points on the easterly side of the site in question has an average slope of 16%, and
therefore should not be considered part of the bluff.
In addition, the DNR definition for "Top of the Bluff' from which the city has adopted their
ordinance states: "Top of the Bluff" means the point on a bluff where there is, as visually
observed, a clearly identifiable break in the slope, from steeper to gentler slope above. If no
break in the slope is apparent, the top of bluff shall be determined to be the upper end ofa 50'
segment, measure on the ground, with an average slope exceeding 18 percent.
Builder License # 20036544. Member of the Builders Association of the Twin Cities
5. On November 10, 1997, the Planning Commission directed staff to work with the appellant
to compose definitions that are less ambiguous to be considered with revisions to the Zoning
Ordinance to be heard by the Planning Commission on November 24, 1997.
6. Upholding the decision of the Zoning Officer results in a legal building envelope of
approximately 10,330 square feet.
7. The contents of Planning Case File #97-11 0 are hereby entered into and made a part of the
public record and the record of the decision for this case.
CONCLUSION
Based upon the Findings set forth above, the City Council hereby upholds the decision of the
Zoning Officer and concurs with the recommendation of the Planning Commission that by
definition of TOP OF BLUFF, area with slopes less that 18% over a distance of 50 feet, cannot
be excluded from the bluff. 50 Foot areas with slopes less than 18% located only between the
toe of the bluff and the top of the bluff are intended to be excluded.
Passed and adopted this 1st day of December, 1997.
YES
NO
Andren
Kedrowski
Mader
Robbins
Schenck
Andren
Kedrowski
Mader
Robbins
Schenck
{Seal}
City Manager,
City of Prior Lake
1:\97files\97appeal\97-110\ccres.doc
Page 2
I
b
~
en
-
-:I:
I-
o
I-
en
w
-
..I
Q.
Q.
~
Z
o
-
~
~
w
a:
Q.
~
W
I-
Z
-
en
-
u.
u.
i!
en
3:
o
:I:
co
I-
-
CO
-
J:
X
W
,y
-1\\ .Q,,-N>
0/ '. [\W
-p. 7J
/~
-<:jr/,' .
.,.f}/
, '
~
GUil
5. @
(.0.) GUil
c:J
<:D ~
~ L::::J
\iUi1
~ 2J
--
~-,,/./
. -\I ~ 1/ ,'/'~
(
\
/
/
,/ ~-
..;/" / ',,"
.r.// / '-<:;-
0- // /
\ i),(l . /
\ ".
\.
;c
,~'
~/.I
/
''''~,
~\l
V-
I
!
::J ~ (J19 ::l 0 dOl-
\
^
t"II~"S
.,r'fJV\
"
-".
.~."
....~
d" ~-? _ ~, ~
~ - -
. ~'!
<-
""
-".
(;:""
/,
~'
, I'::
/'
.~;-~
/ ~\}""":f'"
..
(.~
;.
'-..
L
}'tJ
,h.;r.
r.
f,C/)
-
.:I:
I-
o
...
.fffi
d'_
...I
0.
0.
c:(
Z
o
~
.~
~
w
a:
0.
a:
w
...
..z
-
-
CJ)
w
~
o
::I:
lii
w
a:
g
...I
-
::I:
3=
o
J:
C
I-
-
In
-
J:
><
W
'v
~
(iUil
~ @
~ IiUi1
c:::J
to ~
~ l:::::J
UiiU
~
;'0
!.Iv'
I
O\,~~
~Q
~~(\19
'fJ~ \ <'b ·
/
<.
-S"
o
~.....-
"
d'c?_?~
;' - S
~
--;",
'{-.
->
o
.~'
~~
}-,
,,-
""\.
>:,'
. (, :
./ ~'J'"
/~
MEMORANDUM
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
November 18, 1997
Planning Commission
Don Rye, Planning Director
Jenni Tovar, Planner
Proposed Bluff Language
Jane Kansier, Planner; Bob Hutchins,
Building Official; Pat Lynch, DNR; Hillcrest
Homes; Jim Albers and BUD Waund,
Edina Realty; McKnight and Associates
RE:
CC:
Upon the direction of the Planning Commission at its November 10, 1997
meeting, the Planning Staff met with a local developer and real estate
agent. The purpose of the meeting was to write revised bluff and top of
bluff definitions to alleviate the cumbersome and difficult to interpret
current bluff definitions. Based on this meeting, the Planning Staff is
proposing the following amendments to the Shoreland and Zoning
Ordinances:
TOE OF BLUFF: Definition to remain the same.
TOP OF BLUFF: The highest point of the slope, as measured from the
toe of the bluff, where the grade is 30 percent or greater.
BLUFF SETBACK: As measured from the TOP OF BLUFF, the upper
end of a segment at least 25 feet in length having an average slope less
than 18%.
This removes the floating 50 foot segment. TOP OF BLUFF is
determined as measured from the TOE OF THE BLUFF, with the slope
measured between the 1 foot contours. The building setback is
determined by the slope as measured from the TOP OF BLUFF (25 feet
minimum), not distance to meet the intent of the ordinance. If the slope
from the top of the bluff, towards the street, never drops below 18%, then
the lot would be unbuildable without a variance.
PROPOSED TOP OF BLUFF AND BLUFF SETBACK EXAMPLE
;'.
! .
If
~
"
t:I
(!)
~
Q
;:!
~
Q)
~ '"
0"- -.:
.... f;' ..
0-
, \)- ..
..
I,
: 172% 20%
-- - -- .'.
32'
-
~t40'
" '\:
.,
-",.'.';
,:~3",..-- '
. \'
;25'
I
I J ..'.
12"0'
15'
- 10'
i 5'
,
~
. DO' 95' 90'
1 ]'1 -:. . \0',
80' -
70'
"
~
0-
25' .
65'
55'
60'
It
~
~
~
Q.
E
......
u
<r----
r-..,,,,
0--. l\-) I)-
o c:r-- l\-) .....
11' l"I\ ()
\)' '.... ~
Q- ~
~ I)"
()
Il .....
0- "-
~.:>"
0::.......
i:. ~L,
0-':)-
~....
"'~
(to~
"'::-0
"', l/'.
r ()
(to
Ou
() ,....
a-- ~ ~
'0
(J'o
50'
40'
25',.- 20'
10'
3D'
5'
V)
<l
()>
-..
u
:t-
o
It- OH vJ
:./ I
r:-
SENT BY: DNR 'lETRO;
11 -24-97 11 :57;
6127727573 ==>
6124474245;
#2/2
Minnesota Departrnenl of Nal ural Resources
Metro Waters - 1200 Warner Road, St, Paul, MN 55106-6793
Telephone: (612) 772.7910 Fax: (612) 772-7977
November 24, 1997
Ms. Jenni Tovar, Planner
City of Prior Lake
J6200 Eagle Creek Avenue S.E.
Prior Lake, Minn.c:sota 55372.1714
RE: PROPOSED BLUFF DEFINITION REVISIONS
.Dear Ms. Tovar:
1 have reviewed the proposed revisions to the definitions of toe ofhlufT. rop ofblufJ. and hluffsethack (or purposes
of administering your shcrcJand zoning a'dinance. As I had expressed. to Don Rye in my November 7. 1997 letter. the
language c:cataincd in the state shoreland regulations, which the city has previously adopted., is somewhat difficult 1.0
administer. The changes you propose, as defined in your November 1 X. J 997 memo to the Planning Commission,
l'Cpresa1t n:asonablc alternatives to the existing lzanguage: in your ordinana::. In Addition to the ddinition changes, the
city is proposing to relax. the: sctbll.Ck from the top of bluff from the current 30 fcellO 25 feet. This redw:tion of five
feet should not. nwaially affi:ct the infect of the bluff protection language. provided. the provisions regarding building.
grading. tilling and vegeta1i.on alteration within the bluff impact l.one (the bluff itself and land within 20 fcxt landward
ofthc top ofblum are retained.
'The DNR is not. opposed to the proposed zoning amendmcnl!, and the relaxation of the bluff setback standard can be
~provc:d through implcmc:nti1tion of the flexibility provisiCHlS of the state shoreland rules. If the City Council proceeds
with approval of the proposed amendments. please forward a copy df the resolution to me.
If you have any questions. please call me at 772~7910.
Sincerely,
\~-~~4J2---_._'
Patrick J. Lynch 1H
Area Hydrologist
c: Ed Fick, ShorcJand Hydrologist
I)Nr~ InronllalkHl: <d:!.:!'.lI1.tiIS7, J-Xf.lf.l 7('() (,f/()O . TTY: f,l:' i'll'. ~.l.s.l. '-X()().(,57 \lI.2'.1
.\" Elt'I.11 (Il'~hllhlllll~ 1~1iI"lu~l'r
""Ihl \.'.lllJ~." J)i"a~jl~
..... 1'llIItctllll\ R~'\ l\ h'd f-'''\PCf ('Ollla:lllll?'.1
c...I Miltlllllll11 'U 1"'.(0 1'\)..l"<':UII~l:Ill1:r y..';h:II'
· Another significant factor in determining bluffs is a grade of 18%. The definition
of top and toe of bluff are the highest and lowest points of 50 foot segments with
slopes exceeding 18%. It is our interpretation that the entire 50 foot segment with
a slope exceeding 18% is part of the bluff, with the highest point being considered
the TOP OF BLUFF. Because the definition of TOP OF BLUFF and TOE OF
BLUFF do not specify which 50 foot segments or which slopes, the top and toe
can be located anywhere on the slope, no specific distance from the OHW.
As per our conversation today, you can appeal this interpretation to the City Council. We
will need a letter stating your appeal and how your interpretation differs from ours. Any
information you can provide us on your interpretation will be helpful to the City Council
and Planning Commission prior to the meeting. The next scheduled Planning
Commission date is Monday, November 10, 1997. We will need your interpretation and
response to this letter by Monday, November 3, 1997 to be scheduled for that meeting.
Please call me if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
j~
Since there is a clearly identifiable break in the slope we feel the 50 ft. segment with an average
slope of16% is not part of the bluff. We believe the low point of this 50 ft. segment clearly
identifies "Top of the Bluff", and the point from which the 30 ft. bluff setback is measured.
Using this setback point would place the proposed structure in an appropriate location in
reference to the adjoining property structures, thus creating consistency in the neighborhood.
I
.1
Pres.
Hillcrest Homes, Inc.
.. ~
~-