Laserfiche WebLink
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION <br /> DATE: March 24, 1994 <br /> ITEM NO.: <br /> Department Approval: Administrator Reviewed: Agenda Section: <br /> Name Michael P. Gaffron Zoning <br /> Title Assistant Planning & Zoning Administrator <br /> Item Description: Bluff Issues - Request to DNR <br /> List of Exhibits <br /> A - Proposed Letter to DNR <br /> B - Five Sketches Defining Bluff Issues <br /> C - "Bluff" Sections of Shoreland Ordinance <br /> D - DNR Letter 2-18-94 <br /> Administering the bluff protection regulations of the Shoreland Ordinance is proving to <br /> be challenging. Over the winter, staff took a closer look at the actual language which DNR <br /> drafted and which we adopted as they required. We have had numerous discussions with DNR <br /> staff in the last two months regarding the intent of their rules as well as applying their definitions <br /> to real life situations. <br /> In implementing the bluff protection regulations as currently written, staff has found that <br /> the current definition of"top of bluff" can result in structural setbacks that are much greater than <br /> needed for the protection of the bluff. This can have a substantial impact on the buildability of <br /> a lot. In response to concerns raised by staff, the DNR has suggested using a "common sense" <br /> definition of"top of bluff" vs. the "technical" definition currently in the regulations (see sketches <br /> 2 and 3). But the "common sense" location often varies with the eye of the beholder, and may <br /> not be defensible if an applicant disagrees with the inspector's determination. <br /> The ct„ached draft letter to DNR addresses the specific issue of defining "top of bluff". <br /> Preliminary indications are that they will accept our revised definition. We think this will allow <br /> a consistent and fair determination of the point from which to measure the 30' structural setback <br /> from "top of bluff". <br /> It is not unreasonable to protect our bluffs, as we learned from the amount of damage <br /> caused by the 1987 super-storm. However, one additional potential issue not addressed in the <br /> attached letter is how to deal with additions to existing structures that currently don't meet bluff <br /> protection requirements. Staff is considering how these might be addressed through performance <br /> standards rather than the variance procedure, and will advise Council when we formulate <br /> something we think might be workable. <br /> Unless Council directs otherwise, staff will forward the attached letter to DNR and await <br /> their response. <br /> lsv <br />