Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout4J - Added - Hillcrest Homes Appeal TO: FROM: SUBJECT: MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL FRANK BOYLES HILLCREST HOMES APPEAL FROM THE DECISION OF THE ZONING OFFICER RELATING TO BLUFF AND TOP OF BLUFF DECEMBER 15,1997 DATE: At the December 1, 1997 meeting the City Council deferred action on the above referenced agenda item. The staff recommended this action to minimize variances since adoption of the new zoning ordinance was expected on December 15 and would have rendered the request moot. At the December 8 City Council work session we agreed that the zoning ordinance should not be considered by the Council on December 15. The petitioner has requested that the item be heard by the City Council on December 15 not withstanding the status of the zoning ordinance. I continue to believe that the reduction of variances is an appropriate public policy and accordingly this agenda item should be continued until passage of the zoning ordinance occurs (probably second meeting in January or first meeting in February). I recommend that the City Council add this request to the Consent agenda as item 4J and continue the matter until February 28, 1998 or until such time as the Zoning Ordinance is adopted whichever is sooner. A letter extending the sixty day statutory timcline has been sent to the petitioner. 16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E. Prior Lake. Minnesota 55372-1714 / [Jh (612) 447-4230 / Fax (h12) 447424:) 'IN Inl ';\1 'H'I" \1:11 'rm'Y 1 "11'1 ()'dl~ AGENDA #: PREPARED BY: SUBJECT: DATE: INTRODUCTION: ALTERNATIVES: RECOMMENDATION: ACTION REQUIRED: STAFF AGENDA REPORT JENNI TOVAR, 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 15, 1997 This item was originally scheduled on the December 1, 1997 agenda. Due to the upcoming adoption of a revised Zoning Ordinance and it's effect on this request, the item was continued until December 15, 1997 to be addressed as part of the Zoning Ordinance. However, the Zoning Ordinance is not to be discussed at the December 15, 1997 meeting. We have administratively extended the 60 day statutory deadline for decisions on zoning related items to February 28, 1998. The last meeting this item could possibly be heard is February 17, 1998 to meet the statutory deadline. Therefore, a continuation to the same meeting date as the Zoning Ordinance or February 28, 1998 whichever is sooner is appropriate. 1. Continue the item. 2. Hear the item and make a decision. 3. Other specific action as directed by the Council. Alternative #1. Motion to continue the item to the same meeting date as the revised Zoning Ordinance or February 28, 1998 whichever is sooner. Reviewe~ By: i~ 1:\97fih;1\\97appeal\97 -11 Q'J97UOcc2.poc 1 16200 Eagle UeeK Ave. ~.t.. Prior Lake. Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQU.AL OPPORTL::\ITY E:VlPLOYER fiLE COpy December 12, 1997 also via fax 898-3364 Hillcrest Homes Chris Deanovic 14122 Louisiana Avenue Savage,NIN 55378 RE: Appeal of Decision of Zoning Officer Dear Chris, On October 31, 1997 the City of Prior Lake received an application appealing a decision of the Zoning Officer relating to bluff and top of bluff. This item was heard by the Planning Commission on November 10, 1997 and scheduled to be heard by the City Council on December 1, 1997. Due to in process revision of the Zoning Ordinance and the future effect on this appeal and interpretation, the City Council tabled the item. The City Council anticipated reviewing the Zoning Ordinance at their December 15, 1997 meeting. However, the City Council will not be reviewing the proposed Revised Zoning Ordinance until sometime in January. Therefore, we are extending the 60 day statutory requirement for decisions on zoning applications an additional 60 days to February 28, 1997. Please call me if you have any questions. Sincerely, /lJ 1VVV jyZ/JA-.; ~~ovar Planner 16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake. Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER ST AFF AGENDA REPORT AGENDA #: PREPARED BY: SUBJECT: JENNITOVAR,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 15,1997 DATE: INTRODUCTION: Hillcrest Homes is appealing a decision of the Zoning Officer relating to definition of BLUFF and TOP OF BLUFF. This item was continued at the December 1, 1997 meeting pending the Zoning Ordinance workshop and City Council action on December 15, 1997. The application was submitted on October 31, 1997. The 60 day deadline ends on December 30, 1997. However, the City can extend the deadline another 60 days until February 28, 1997 if necessary. 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 of less 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 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 16200 E~~Wle~~7e~P~0~7-S1~:,7pH~~i'E~ke. Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER 1:\97files\97appea1\97-11 0\97-11 Occ.doc 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 bluffto 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 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 ofthe 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 2 I :\97files\97appea1\97 -110\97 -11 Occ.doc 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 detennination 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' 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. Staff's 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 of the 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 3 ISSUES: AL TERNATIVES: RECOMMENDATION: ACTION REQUIRED: 1 :\97tiles\97appea1\97 -110\97 -11 Oec.doc 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. 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 of bluff setback is appealed by Hillcrest Homes, the Council will hear the variance appeal in late December or early January. The City Council must determine if they agree with the staffs interpretation of the 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. 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. Alternative #1, to uphold the decision of the zoning officer. Adoption of Resolution #97-XX affirming the decision of the zoning officer Reviewed By: Frank Boyles, City Manager 4 RESOLUTION 97-XX RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL UPHOLDING THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION IN THE MATTER OF AN APPEAL BY IDLLCREST 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 1 st 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 RESOLVED 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 pernlit 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 15, 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:\97files\97appeal\97-110\ccres.doc Page I 16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E.. Prior Lake. Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTU;\ITY EMPLOYER 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 #97-110 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 ofthe bluff are intended to be excluded. Passed and adopted this 15th 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.U tL.. 0... 4- 0 ~ ~ -.J ~U) CI) co lL i!: ,... () ~ ~ ~ ~ ..... ~ ~ CI) D- ~ en 6 LIJ C) ...,J UJ Z CI) .. 0 ~ It) - u 40' 117 ro CT:" ~25' I 1-) 120' 15' 10' 15' UJ 0.. o (fl -J CO en ..- :x: <: ..... ~ ~ ~ ex: ~ ~ C) ~ UJ ex: en C) ~ 9 <{~ ~vv .... 0<( ~{\o~ S EXHIBIT A STAFF INTERPRETATION OF , BLUFF AND TOP OF BLUFF aA 8 e-T5 e. R rT e l2-' A lS f>L\JFF F' .J .itt of f;>LuFF pEr\,vlTIOlVe ~ [V) ()- ..... ') ~ r'.J fY) 0'-, p,., f)- . <:r- p,., ..... (l- "., () ...... (l- ...... (r.. ~J (to '1J en <t- I(j Cl' f'. I'1l --'I, 0-- ~ V1 c- Of :J- (1' r~ rf),r (l- r) ().. f'~ _ 0- J a ~ '" a- " 0- .'\, 0::,..... rr;. :.,q c, (t-~)- u-- -... 0--"1 I a::"T 0'-0:--9 If'.. ...;?, f\, Q a-- 50' . I" 30' 60:?: OSZQ ~& I) ..... V) t) ') ')- ()' Q (;-0 otiV') 50' ~5' 85' 80' ,- 75' 70' 65' 1 00' 90' 60' )'1 ~ \0' 55' ,( 6' . i 5 10' 15' 25', 20' 30' 5' f \ m ... - m - ~ x w 6 ..J en - J: ... ~ en w - ..J Q. a.. ,-:!C( z o - ~ ~ w a: a.. -0: w ... z - en - LL. LL. ~ en 3= o J: -41 '/ ~ <,0 I ~- ,('\ ,0"' ;.:;, /..y /1; ,/:; -'l ,y \ \ Q,'10 <1 '. I. '>-f _ _yr 1/ f I; dO,/-' t " 'i / ~~' /(,~~,! /~/' ;/ / /. /' ,,' /' ./ .... ,... " ,//. 4J'l (10/ ()'U -VI" "" I \ I '. \ (i \ \ "t:' \ ""' " ~.::--.. '~ ~ '" /' / / ',V l. 'v l' t, / If' / v~ ,I I v .I /' :i ). \ ( , ------ ( , \ '-.,..~ " \~\\ .~\\ -';\ ^ , -':;~-;:'" ....~ " -'..- -' -- <., ", r ( -~ -'. ".. , ) '., r. " ./ / . ~-T- ",,- /~l!'i'....,'<-tl'''' // ~ ,. , PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 10,1997 C. Case #97-11 0 Hillcrest Homes appeal of the decision of the Zoning Administrator relating to the definition of a billffin the Shoreland District. Planner Jenni Tovar presented the staff report dated November 10, 1997. Section 5-6-4 of the City Code provides for an appeal process from decisions of the Zoning Officer. The Planning Director is the Zoning Officer in Prior Lake. The action was initiated by an inquiry to the definition of a bluff and top of bluff with regards to a proposed structure on the lot. The City sent a letter to the appellant detailing the definition of a bluff and top of bluff and staffs interpretation of those definitions. In a letter to the city, Hillcrest Homes is appealing staffs interpretation and is providing their interpretation of the same definition. Staffs conclusion is the statement 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 thetop of bluff must be part of the bluffby definition. The Department of Natural Resources concurs with staffs interpretation stated in Hydrologist, Pat Lynch's letter dated November 7, 1997. Comments from the public: Chris Deanovic, 14122 Louisiana Avenue, Savage, representing Hillcrest Homes highlighted the bluff section from the DNR Shoreland Regulations. He understands there is a bluff and went on to explain his belief of where the top of the bluff should be. He knows the DNR agrees with staff but also indicated the ordinance is ambiguous and can be flexible. Mr. Deanovic went on to explain their proposed home stating they are trying to position their building not to obstruct their view of the lake (between the two neighboring structures). Their interpretation of the bluff would be a 10% slope. Winston Simonson, 16087 Northwood Road said he was present for curiosity purposes. He is a neighbor and said the house in question is 24 years old. Mr. Simonson explained he is not complaining but was interested how the new structure will affect them. He was hoping the new home would be set back so they could see the lake. Deanovic went on to explain the 50 foot segment on the back of a proposed home with a 9 foot difference. They have no desire to impact the bluff. The DNR accepts a 20 foot setback, Prior Lake 30 feet. Rye explained the City was informed by the DNR that a couple of years after they promulgated these rules with the definition the City adopted, they administratively adopted the language that talks about where one can observe the slope change from greater to lesser. Prior Lake adopted the Shoreland Rules definition. L:\97FILES\97PLCOMM\PCMIN\MNIII097.DOC 4 Winston Simonson pointed out the obvious slope always referred to as a cliff on the survey. There is quite a grade to the front of the house compared to the back. He feels the slope should end at the front of the building. The house is going to be crowded no matter where it is placed. Mr. Simonson stated he received a variance 24 years ago. The Board at the time said he had to get written permission on each side. One neighbor refused and the other stated he had to maintain the 15 foot setback. Jim Albers, Storms Circle, pointed out staffs interpretation opposed to his interpretation of the bluff with the 50 foot segments and feels the error is in the definition of the top of the bluff and suggested a proposed top of bluff definition: "The lower point of the closest 50 feet segment to the toe of the bluff that has an average slope of 18% or less." He feels it is really hard to enforce because of the complicated definition. The DNR has two documents for the City, one regulation and a sample administrative ordinance. V onhof pointed out that surveys in the Shoreland District should have contour lines. Marv Mirsch, has a seasonal home at 15432 Red Oaks Road, permanent home in St. Paul, presented a proposed Minnesota Rules from the legislature provided by Pat Lynch of the DNR. One word is missing in the Prior Lake Ordinance "to find it necessary to exclude from the definition of the bluff any areas that .... with an area slope of 18% or less over a 50 foot segment. He feels the City should exclude anything 18% or less in the bluff area. Mr. Mirsch believes the ordinance interpretation is an exclusion not inclusion. Rye said Mr. Mirsch and Mr. Albers definitions are correct stating the DNR allows flexibility. But the issue is Prior Lake's definition. The bluff impact zone includes the bluff itself. Comments from the Commissioners: Kuykendall: · The definition is defined in the Shoreland Management hand book, Zoning Ordinance and DNR Rules and Model Ordinance. · The only option is to stay out of the bluff impact zone. Stamson stated the discussion is if staff s interpretati on is correct. Kuykendall: . Staff s interpretation is correct. · Will recommend to redefine the definition. L:\97FILES\97PLCOMM\PCMIN\MNIII097.DOC 5 Stamson: · At first agreed strictly with staff, then agreed with applicant, but after discussion this evening believe staff s interpretation is clearly correct. · The definition of bluff is really an independent description of what the top of a bluff IS. · The staff interpreted the ordinance correctly and is backed by the DNR. Cramer: · The wording is contradicting. There is no consistency. The DNR is responsible. · The intent of the ordinance is to prevent someone from coming in the future where their home slides into the lake. · People will ask why did the City let me build in a bluff? · Staffs interpretation is correct. V onhof: · Concurs with staff and Commissioners. · It should not be that hard for residents and staff to interpret. The intent is to have bluff protection. · There is a second issue to deal with after this motion. MOTION BY VONHOF, SECOND BY CRAMER, TO RECOMMEND TO CITY COUNCIL TO UPHOLD THE STAFF INTERPRETATION OF THE ORDINANCE AS OUTLINED IN THE STAFF REPORT. Vote taken signified ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED. Open Discussion: Kuykendall suggested having someone from the DNR come in an explain the negative impacts of this issue. We need to be educated, what steps can one take and maintain the ordinance. He believes an engineer can come in and show how to stabilize the land and meet the objectives. V onhof agreed. Some one should come up with better definitions. Stamson stated the DNR obviously did a study and this was the conclusion. His concem is the original way it was written it was fairly restricted but now administratively, the DNR has become 100se in their definition. There should be bluff standards. Meet certain criteria. Stamson and Cramer's concern is the definition of the top of the bluff. Rye said he would be happy to meet with the applicant and go over a definition to present to City Council. Until it is changed, staff's recommendation will follow the ordinance. L:\97FILES\97PLCOMM\PCMIN\MNl11097.DOC 6 MOTION BY KUYKENDALL, SECOND BY VONHOF, TO REFER THIS BACK TO STAFF FOR STUDY AND FOR STATING THE PRACTICE IN SIMILAR COMM1JNITIES WITH SIMILAR ISSUES AS PART OF THE ZONING CODE ORDINANCE ON NOVEMBER 24,1997. Vote taken signified ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED. 7. Announcements and Correspondence: MOTION BY KUYKENDALL, SECOND BY VONHOF, TO MODIFY ALL REQUIREMENTS IN THE ZONING ORDINANCE TO HAVE ALL LOT MEASUREMENTS ROUNDED UP NO GREATER THAN .5 FEET. V onhof suggested the Zoning Administrator could make the decision. There would still be a process but could be determined administratively. Kuykendall retracted the motion and agreed to have staff come up with a practical solution. Cramer questioned the availability of the new zoning ordinance. Rye responded by the end of the week. Kuykendall wanted to bring back a previous issue of "traffic calming" on Highway 13. The Commissioners would like to reconsider changing the truck traffic routing by the State to County Road 17 to minimize the traffic on Highway 13. He suggested a study using County Road 27 and 21 to alleviate traffic. Kuykendall also suggested revisiting all traffic controls on Highway 13. This would bring in State, County and local engineers. He would like to see 4-way stop signs. 4-way stops it will force truck traffic off Highway 13 and reduce the volume of traffic. This issue should be part of a workshop after the zoning ordinance. MOTION BY KUYKENDALL, SECOND BY VONHOF, THAT COUNCIL BE APPRISED OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S INTEREST IN REVIEWING THE ISSUE OF HIGHWAY 13 FROM A STRATEGIC POINT OF VIEW RELATIVE TO TRAFFIC CALMING AND THE POTENTIAL OF PULLING NEIGHBORHOODS TOGETHER INSTEAD OF SEPARATING NEIGHBORHOODS AND WE INVITE THE STATE AND COUNTY PEOPLE TO JOIN US IN WORKSHOPS. Vote taken signified ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED. 8. Adjournment: CHAIRMAN STAMSON ADJOURNED THE MEETING AT 8:44 P.M.. Donald Rye Director of Planning Connie Carlson Recording Secretary L:\97F1LES\97PLCOMM\PCMlN\MNll1097.DOC 7 Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Metro Waters - 1200 WamerRoad, 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 Ru1es, defining bluff, top ofbluff, and toe ofbluff 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 mininunn 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 difficu1t to efficiently and effectively administer and enforce by city staff, the DNR wou1d entertain, under the flexibility provisions of the Shoreland Ru1es, alternative definitions, provided the original intent of bluff protection is not compromised. If you have any questions, please call me at 772-7910. Sincerely, - tJv~~, Patrick 1. Lynch-rtl Area Hydrologist c: Ed Fick, Shoreland Hydrologist ~ DNR Information: 612-296-6157. 1-:'\00-766-6000 . TTY: 612-296-54:'\4. 1-:'\00-657-3929 :\n [:yual Opportunity Employer \\'ho Valut"'i Di\'L'f~it: n Printed on R('cyckd Paper CO!1!;lining a f...) \linirnum of I(Yi Post~Con...umcr \\';1..,1c RHI HILLCREST HOMES, INC. 16714 Jaguar Ave., Lakeville. Minnesota 55044 (612) 898-7663 Office (612) 898-3364 Fax '~Builder Driven By Quality Craftsmanship 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 bluff and "Top of the Bluff' are as follows: BLUFF-A topographic feature such as a hill, cliff, or embankment having the following characteristics (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 blufl): (A) Part or all ofthe 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 feet (25') or more above the ordinary high-water level averages thirty percent (30%) or greater; and (D) 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 933 and 941 elevation points on the easterly side ofthe 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 of a 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 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- - In - J: >< W .:I.:tn7g .:J 0 dO..L,. z o - bU. ~LL w:) a:..J a.. In a:L.L. wO 1-0.. ~O - I- ffie :!Z o~ -:.t: 11. I-LJ.. cn'::J w..J a:I:D ULL ..JO ..J - ~ \Au... ~ u- ~":) lU-l ~c:D u.. LL "'" u..O~ o ';) - .....s~.... ~cl< lu- C1\....u. _ ~ \b ':2:. <.J a r . lc~ 1..1.. ~ -J ~ u.. c ~ <:t Cl- %8 ~ NlfHl l:I31lf3l:1S t '0 3d01S H1.IM lN3VVS3S .09 2: %8 t N'ffHl 5531 3d01S H1.IM 1.N3WS35 .OS ~ o 'l::t l~ b'fb" f;;> hOb ,- ~Cb €", 4, '. (:- I _ I. ., -'> o ~ 20b 60& 0,1. t" / I b r 16 , ell, nIb -5" I b Cj1b (rf:, <fIb t, (, O~6 10 ,... '0 N 10 N ~ 0- ~ ~CJ ~ 0 0 V) (\') 10 C"') 0 'l::t 10 ~ -:,.:0 \() 10 10 0 (0 10 CO 0 "- It) '" 0 CO It) CO 0 0') 10 0 O'l 1\ "" 10 - 0 0 ~ Ofb fEb CE b [E h I~ f, E b fj I I I Sf b I t I I I I i ~ c4 V) r ; I ~I 0' -~ f o M <1)E.b o V) L E. b LIJ 0.. o ....l C/) i ~" - rO _N 10 .,... o ,... 10 N -'.~. ~'Q .-'r.~..'i .~ f(J) .- :I: I- o I- ::.en ",'W , ';.- '..J 0.. D- c:( Z o --- .~ ~ w a: D. I:[ W t- ..Z - - en w :E o ::t: tn w a: g ..J - :I: 3: o :I: C I- - In - J: X W ....~ \ --;'l'" ,\' '. Q \I)) /J . /' / )~ /:- -<1\-'" ,...{J-' ~. I\ 0''-' ":A , /.-;. 0- 1/' ,; 0' t f. fi / r,e .... (r t: . - .". ,) ~'/> /,,f" / , ~i/ . / f&(l((i' / 7" -V /" /1> ". . , ~~ / / '" \ n,r// // \ ,,\1 \ 'l \ \ g. \ .' \ 0:r CO'- .'./0... / ;:,c 'v' /1 d\ . / ,// ~a (\1~ ~~ 'f ~ 'v :r // 11.' I I Ii ). '{ / / I >(J()\~ · A>rT:, -I! ~ / /1" .~~. .'. 1,,1" .. <"'"' -,":" ~~.... ........ (/-7:::-.";'-51 c ." I ,'J ,... // 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 shore land 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: . 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 OH\V. . The slope must drain towards the lake. Slopes draining away from the lake are not considered bluffs. 16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E.. Prior Lake. Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 .AN EQL"AL OPPORTC;'-JITY EMPLOYER . 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. ~CerelY' (jr ~j~h~~ Planner MEMORANDUM RE: CC: 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 DATE: TO: FROM: 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 I 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. LU -J Q. ~ <t >< LU ~ (,) <t ~ LU en L&.. ~ -J ~ o :r:: <t ~ -J a1 LL. o Q. o I- o LU en o Q. o a: Q. s. r;; ob "')Ob L.-y, .:(;~ 60(, 0,1. ~/~& h r'b If, ..s I b "ill, t.f{" <fIb t 1[, Oq, r",~ I:. "Ct, r; c6 :1:1n78 :10 dOl Of", Ifb CE b .[ E h I;; /, Eb ' >-Q Q. .r: ",. S.n diEb I - In I~ I af-l ~l ... "'J >lOtl8.13S 9NIQ1/n8 LEh (:) o::t (go bf.b'- o I~ It) o ,... o N It) "'"" ~ It) N -- -_._----_.._--~~.--.. It) o ,... It) "'"" o N It) N 10 M It) M o o::t 'in 'l:t -,..:0 -\0 10 It) o <.0 It) <0 o "" It') " o co It) co o 0') o o ,... ,'.l,.' " !' ~ - ~340' .. 'I' 5.'. /' ! ~," ': .'. . , -1 -- I':' .:-3O:~. ' . , \ :25' I , I 'I \ 20' 15' - 10' i 5' PROPOSED TOP OF BLUFF AND BLUFF SETBACK EXAMPLE ~ ~ "- :;; C!J ~ () ;:i ~ Q) ~ "" a"- t-: ~ t- o.. \)'- "- ~ 0- : 172% .... ..- - 32' 25' . ~ 95' 100')'1:0. \D'. 90' 70' 60' 80' . 65' 55' tt :::) ~ ..... o Q.. E ...... u zr- f'Y)fY) 0--. r.., I)- '<1- (1) ...... (I,N)<:\ ...... ". '.... (r.. ~ Q' 'b 00 .~' rcr " c-- 'j 5'8. ;:;rr 0- rj - u- '1l u- () I1i '" 0- ... 0..-:>" C;:" ;:. :? L, 0- - :r- 0-- .... "'"'Y) ~~ "'::-0 "', u-. ... Q (]'o C\:. () r- rr- !J2 ~ ';) (]'o 50' 40' 25',- 20' 15' 5' 3D' 10' V) () Q-o '"' tJ ';)- () cr- 0 tI vJ I I PROPOSED TOP OF BLUFF AND BLUFF SETBACK EXAMPLE fJ ~ E--. f}j ~ Q :::d ::J ~ ~ c; '^ , ~ 0.- "~ ... ..... \l ~- ."J' 0'- If: ~ ~ ~ 0- f::. Ii" · "- Ii ,.., )- 0- , ~ ",'" ;.~ (j,. j::J V\ , a.I. Co \ q..\ ",v\'1 ,,'" 'j ,.l~ "I q.j\ I I i 1~~ I I~-;;~----- -- I 60' I I ) I " q~, ~ 1 '31.f ,I r. "~,, el I \, . \'20' q.l.&{ t I 15' i I !, ~J1 cl - 10' ..... \J :)- Q (r- 011 vJ I 0' 95' 90' : 10 r-=- '\0', 70' 65' 55' ',)' 501 40' 3D' 25'). 20' 15' 5' 10' ~} SENT BY: DNR 1ETRO; 11 -24-97 11 :57; 6127727573 "'> 6124474245; #2/2 Min Ilcsota Departmenl of Nal ural Resources Metro Waters - ]200 Warner Road, St. Paul,!I.1N 55106-6793 Telephone: (612) 772-7910 Fax: (612) 772-7977 November 24, 1997 I~ Ms. Jenni Tovar, Planner City of Prior Lake 16200 Eagle Creek Avenue S.E. Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 RE: PROPOSED BLUFF DEFINITION REVISIONS DeaT Ms. Tovar: 1 have reviewed the proposed revisions to the definitions of toe ofbluj[. lop ofbluJJ. and bluff setback [or purposes of administering your sh.are1and zoning ordinance. As I had expressed. to Don Rye in my November 7, 1997 letter. the language COlJtained in the state shoreland regulations, which the city has previously adopted., is somewhat difficult to administer. The changes you propose, as defined in your November 18, 1997 memo to the Planning Canunission, represent ~Ic alt.erMtives to the existing language in your ordinance. In addition to tbe definition changes, the city is proposing to relax. the sctba.ck from the top ofbluiI from the current 30 fcc:t 10 25 feet. This reduction offive feet should not maI.crially affect the inteDt of the bluff prottttion language. provided. the provisions n:garding building. grading. filling and vegetation alteration within the bluff impact ?.one (the bluff itself and land within 20 fc:ctlandward of the top of blum are retained. 1be DNR is not opposed to the proposed ......oning amendmcnLs, and the relaxation of the bluff setback standard can be approved through implementation ofthc flexibility provisions of the state shoreland rules. If the City Council proceeds with approval of the proposed amendments, plc:1Se forward a copy of the: resolution to me. If you have: any questions, please call me at 772-7910, Sincerely, \ ?*-~ ~(1J2.---'" Patrick J. Lynch IH Area Hydrologist c: Ed Fick, Shordand Hydrologist !J'd~ I"(mln.lli,,,): ("~'~')h-tiISI. I-X!)!) 7(,() (,fl()O . TTY: f.l:' "1(, ~.l,'i..j. I-XO().(1.~7 "I:" .\1\ Fql!.ll (Jl'~'tllhlflll~ 1-:lill'{ll~n \\"1..1 \.';tlu..::. Di \'~'r"i ': ~ 1'llllll.:t11ll1 I{l'~ r. h'd p;\\.'l."l C\llll;l:lllrl!' .1 c.., :\-liIlIIIl1l111 III IU'.t 1'\)~\~CIlII:'\I~llh~r '!t';hll'