03-28-1994 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION C0UMC...I ___ MAR 2 8 1994 cmroFORONo ~i DATE: March 24, 1994 ITEM NO ■■■1 Department Approval: Administrator Reviewed: Name Michael P. Gaffton IfUfit Title Assistant Planning & Zoning Adrainistraior Agenda Section: Zoning Item Description: Bluff Issues - Request to DNR List of Exhibits A - Proposed Letter to DNR B - Five Sketches Defining Bluff Issues C - "Bluff" Sections of Shoreland Ordinance D - DNR Letter 2-18-94 Administering the bluff protection regulations of the Shoreland Ordinance is proving to be challenging. Over the winter, staff took a closer look at the actual languap which DNR drafted and which we adopted as they required. We have had numerous discussions with DNR staff in the last two months regarding the intent of their rules as well as applying their definitions to real life situations. In implementing the bluff protection regulations as currently written, staff has found that the current definition of "top of blufr can result in structural setbacks that are much greater than needed for the protection of the bluff. This can have a substantial impact on the buildability of a lot. In response to concerns raised by staff, the DNR has suggested using a "common sense definition of "top of blufr vs. the "technical" definition currently in the regulations (see sketches 2 and 3). But the "common sense" location often varies with the eye of the beholder, and may not be defensible if an applicant disagrees with the inspector’s determination. The attached draft letter to DNR addresses the specific issue of defining "top of bluff". Preliminary indications are that they will accept our revised definition. We think this will allow a consistent and fair determination of the point from which to measure the 30’ structural setback from "top of bluff". It is not unreasonable to protect our bluffs, as we learned from the amount of damage caused by the 1987 super-storm. However, one additional potential issue not addressed in the attached letter is how to deal with additions to existing strucmres that currently don’t meet bluff protection requirements. Staff is considering how these might be addressed through performance standards rather than the variance procedure, and will advise Council when we formulate something we think might be workable. Unless Council directs otherwise, staff will forward the attached letter to DNR and await their response.