Laserfiche WebLink
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION <br />DATE: March 24, 1^94 <br />ITEM NO.: <br />Department Approval: <br />Name Michael P. Gaffron <br />Title Assistant Planning & Zoning Administrator <br />Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: <br />Zoning <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 impU*<^» mting 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 "teclmicar 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 aaached draft letter to DNR addresses the specific issue of defining "top of blufr. <br />Preliminary indications arc 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 »o 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 ilie attached letter to DNR and await <br />their response.