Loading...
8 Lakeshore Setback RegulationsCITYOF 690 City Center Drive PO Bor I47 Oanhassen, Minnesota 55317 Phone 952.93Z1900 General lax 952.937.5739 'ngineering Department Fax 952.937.9152 Building Department Fax 952.934.2524 Web Site www. c£ chanhassen, mn. us MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Jansen City Council FROM: Loft Haak, Water Resources Coordinator DATE: June 20, 2001 SUB J: Proposed Lakeshore Setback Regulations BACKGROUND These regulations are currently under examination by City Council, Planning Commission and City staff because administration of the existing standard is difficult. City staff is requesting the current lakeshore setback standard be eliminated because, in some cases, it is punitive to lakeshore property owners. In addition, the current language does not include a method for applying the standard. _ NEED The City adopted a setback requirement that exceeds the requirements of the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR). These requirements are intended to protect the lake views of existing homes as well as ensure an appearance of continuity; however, the standard is difficult to administer. Section 20481 (Attachment 1) states: "When a structure exists on a lot on either side, the setback of a proposed structure shall be the greater of the distance set forth in the above table or the setback of the existing structure." In interpreting this standard, staff has employed two methods to determine setbacks for lakeshore lots under this portion of the Code. These methods have been identified by staff, but are not prescribed in the Code. Mayor Jansen & City Council June 20, 2001 Page 2 Using the first method, the setbacks of structures on lots on either side, where they exist, are averaged and the proposed structure is required to meet that setback (Figure 1). In cases where the shoreline is not straight along the three properties, it is not always reasonable to require the proposed structure to meet the average setback (Figure 2). Often, it is more reasonable to draw a line between the rearmost points of structures on adjacent lots and require the proposed structure to 'meet that setback (Figure 3). Mayor Jansen & City Council June 20, 2001 Page 3 .,..% Using either method, the inclusion of existing structures that are set back several hundred feet on very deep properties skews the results. The skewed mathematical average or line drawn often makes a lot unbuildable if a variance is not granted. Recently, a number of applicants have requested variances from this standard, l~ ordcr to roducc thc amount of timc spcnt by thc City Council, Planning Commission and City staff on this issuc and to strcamlinc thc proccss for applicants, it is prudcnt to cxaminc thc currcnt standard and whcthcr it can bc rcvisod to roducc thc numbcr of varianccs. The number of variances requested raised a red flag to staff. Staff believes it is prudent to examine the current standard and whether it can be revised to more clearly define the issues (provide an appearance of continuity; protect the integrity of the City's lakes and shorelines; protect views) and propose a better approach. The ultimate goal is to ensure uniform application of the standard by prescribing a method of applying the standard. ANALYSIS The goal of the existing standard is to: 1. Protect sight lines of the lake from existing homes; and 2. Provide a continuous appearance along the fronts of lakeshore lots; and 3. Protect the integrity of the City's lakes and shorelines. Historically, in many neighborhoods containing lakeshore properties, primary structures are placed in a way that provides a continuous appearance from the street and protects lake views (Attachments 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7). A majority of these riparian subdivisions were approved prior to adoption of the current ordinance, yet maintained sight lines and continuous appearances (Attachments 2, 3, 5, 6, 7). Option 1 (Staff Recommendation): Eliminate Current Standards Staff recommends that those current standards more restrictive than DNR requirements be eliminated. It is not possible to write an ordinance that would ensure a continuous appearance for every situation. There are simply, too many variables to account for them all in the City Code. The DNR Mayor Jansen & City Council June 20, 2001 Page 4 requirements are straightforward and are applicable to all new lots created since the City's shoreland ordinance was adopted. The more stringent standards are an attempt to blend proposed development into existing development. In many cases, this results in requirements that are punitive to the owners of lots that were not built out concurrently with the rest of the development (i.e., infill development) or to the owners of lots with irregular shorelines. Elimination of all standards more restrictive than DNR requirements would do away with these punitive requirements. It would also decrease the amount of City Council, Planning Commission and staff time spent on interpretation, application and enforcement of the shoreland ordinance. Current setbacks (lakeshore, side yard, etc.) and building size restrictions (height, impervious surface, etc.) would still regulate the placement and bulk of structures on lakeshore lots. Option 2: Adopt Standards Based on those of Minnetrista Minnetrista's standards (Attachment 8) set forth three criteria for lakeshore setbacks, the greatest of which determines the setback for a particular lot. This standard eliminates one problem by stating that, if the adjacent riparian principal structures are greater than 200 feet from the structure in question, the standard does not apply. However, since the greatest of the three criteria determines the setback, it appears these standards would result in problems similar to those currently experienced by the City. If the Planning Commission City Council feels strongly about maintaining a blending-type provision regarding lakeshore setbacks, staff recommends the adoption of a variation on Minnetrista's standards. This would include language as follows: "No structure shall be located closer to the ordinary high water mark than the setback in the above table. Additionally, any structure (unless otherwise permitted by this article) shall exceed the lesser of the following two setbacks: a) A line which is drawn between principal structures on the riparian lots on either side of a proposed structure at the forward most protrusion toward the water, or b) The average setback of the principal structures from the ordinary high water mark on the lots on either side of a proposed structure. For purposes of calculating the average, begin measuring at the forward most protrusion (toward the water). Protrusion shall include any part of the principal structure, such as decks, part of the dwelling unit, porches, etc. Protrusion shall not include slabs, detached buildings, detached garages, etc. Mayor Jansen & City Council June 20, 2001 Page 5 Subsections a and b shall not apply unless there are principal structures within 200 feet on all riparian lots abutting the proposed structure." SUMMARY In short, staff recommends the elimination of current lakeshore setback standards for several reasons: 1. The current standard is difficult to administer; 2. If a property owner is required to meet setbacks consistent with those on the lots on either side, the requirements may infringe on the property owners' rights to reasonable use of his or her property. This could result in a takings issue; an~ 3. Cooperation between the applicant, adjacent property owners and the City with regard to home orientation, screening vegetation and other factors often results in suitable resolutions to setback issues. This dramatically reduces the amount of time spent by City Council, Planning Commission and staff on view protection issues; 4. The order in which structures within subdiviSions are constructed becomes an integral part of the planning of the subdivision because the required setback for each lot may change if a structure is built on a lot on either side first. This may be punitive to prospective buyers, developers and property owners. Staff does not recommend any provision that would require a build-out order for the lots to be buildable without variances; and 5. The DNR standards provide adequate protection for the City's lakes and shorelines. Staff will continue to encourage lakescaping to further protect lake quality and shoreline stability. PLANNING COMMISSION UPDATE On May 15, 2001, the Chanhassen Planning Commission reviewed the City's standard for shoreland setbacks (Attachment 9). Staff recommendation was to eliminate the portion of the City Code that requires proposed structures on riparian lots to meet or exceed the setbacks of existing structures on riparian lots on either side. The Commission recommended approval of amending Section 20-481 with a vote of 3 to 1. The amendment proposed by the Planning Commission is, as follows: "No structure shall be located closer to the ordinary high water mark than the setback in the above table. Additionally, any structure, unless otherwise permitted by this article, shall exceed the lesser of the following two setbacks: (a) A line which is drawn between principle structures on the riparian lots on either side of the proposed structure at the forward most protrusion towards the water, or (b) The average setback of the principal structures from the Mayor Jansen & City Council June 20, 2001 Page 6 ordinary high water mark on the lots on either side of the proposed structure. For purposes of calculating the average, begin measuring at the forward most protrusion towards the water. Protrusion shall include any part of the principal structure such as decks, part of the dwelling unit, porches, etc. Protrusion shall not include slabs, detached buildings, detached garages, etc. The maximum setback used for calculating subsections (a) and (b) shall be 150 feet." ADDITIONAL COMMENTS Staff has reviewed the Planning Commission recommendation from May 15, 2001 and suggests the addition of the following language if the Planning Commission recommendation is adopted by the City Council: "If a lot on either side does not contain a structure, the setback of a structure on that lot used for calculating subsections (a) and (b) shall be the distance set forth in the above table." At the June 5, 2001 Planning Commission meeting, the Planning Commission recommended the approval of the Creekwood subdivision with a 75-foot shoreland setback. Staff made this recommendation because, without allowing deviation from a strict interpretation of the current standard, the order in which building permits were received could have rendered lots unbuildable without variances. Two Planning Commissioners (Commissioners Kind and Slagle) voiced their support for the elimination of any shoreland setback standard more stringent than the DNR's requirements. Commissioner Sacchet continued his support for the standard recommended by the Planning Commission on May 15. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that City Council approve the following motion: "Section 20-481 shall be modified to read: 'Sec. 20-481. Placement, design, and height of structure. (a) Placement ofsmtctures on lots. When more than one (1) setback applies to a site, structures and facilities shall be located to meet all setbacks. Structures and Mayor Jansen & City Council June 20, 2001 Page 7 onsite sewage treatment systems shall be setback (in feet) from the ordinary high water level as follows: Classes of Public Waters LAKES Natural environment 150 Recreational 100 development RIVERS Agricultural and 100 tributary Structures Structures Sewered Sewage Treatment Unsewered System 150 150 75 75 50 75 Whcn a structurc cxists on a lot on cithcr sidc, thc sctback of a propo~d structurc shall bc thc grcator of thc distancc sct forth in thc abovc tablc or thc sctback of thc cxisting structure.'" ATTACHMENTS: 1. Chanhassen City Code, Section 20-481 2. Lake Riley Boulevard aerial photograph 3. Minnewashta Heights aerial photograph 4. Whitetail Cove aerial photograph 5. Dogwood Road aerial photograph 6. Horseshoe Curve aerial photograph 7. Sandy Hook Road aerial photograph 8. City of Minnetrista Current Standards 9. 5/15/01 Planning Commission Minutes 10. Comments from T. Germundson dated 6/19/01 g:~engklorikmemosklakeshore setback cc.doc Attachment I ZONING § 20-481 Tributary Agricultural No Sewer Sewer Triplex 300 200 150 Quad 375 250 190 (4) Additional special provisions. Residential subdivisions with dwelling unit densities exceeding those in the tables in subsections (1), (2) and (3) can only be allowed if designed and approved as residential planned unit developments. Only land above the ordinary high water level of public waters shall be used to meet lot area standards, and lot width standards shall be met at both the ordinary high water level and at the building line. The sewer lot area dimensions in subsections (1), (2) and (3) can only be used ff publicly owned sewer system service is available to the property. (Ord. No. 217, § 4, 8-22-94; Ord. No. 240, § 13, 7-24-95; Ord. No. 240, § 13, 7-24-95) Sec. 20-481. Placement, design, and height of structure. (a) Placement of structures on lots. When more than one (1) setback applies to a site, structures and facilities shall be located to meet all setbacks. Structures and onsite sewage treatment systems shall be setback (in feet) from the ordinary high water level as follows: Classes of Public Waters Sewage Structures Treatment Unsewered Sewered System Lakes Natural environment 150 150 150 Recreational development 100 75 75 Rivers Agricultural and tributary 100 50 75 When a structure exists on a lot on either side, the setback of a proposed structure shall be the greater of the distance set forth in the above table or the setback of the existing structure. One (1) water-oriented accessory structure designed in accordance with section 20-482(e)(2)(b) of this article may be setback a minimum distance often (10) feet from the ordinary high water level. (b) Additional structure setbacks. The following additional structure setbacks apply, regardless of the classification of the waterbody. Setback From: (1) Top of bluff; (2) Unplatted cemetery; (3) Right-of-way line of federal, state, or county highway; and Setback (in feet) 30 50 50 Supp. No. 8 1195 § 20-481 CHANHASSEN CITY CODE Setback From: (4) Right-of-way line of town road, pub- lic streets, or other roads or streets not classified. Setback (in feet) 2O (c) Bluff impact zones. Structures and accessory facilities, except stairways and landings, shall not be placed within bluff impact zones. (d) Nonresidential uses without water-oriented needs. Uses without water-oriented needs shall be located on lots or parcels without public waters frontage, or, fflocated on lots or parcels with ~ublic waters frontage, shall either be set back double the normal ordinary high water level setback or be substantially screened from view from the water by vegetation or topography, assuming summer, leaf-on conditions. (e) Design criteria for structures. (1) High water elevations. Structures shall be placed in accordance with any flood plain regulations applicable to the site. Where these controls do not exist, the elevation to which the lowest floor, including basement, is placed or floodproofed shall be determined as follows: a. For lakes, by placing the lowest floor at a level at least three (3) feet above the highest known water level, or three (3) feet above the ordinary high water level; whichever is higher; b. For rivers and streams, by placing the loWest floor at least three (3) feet above the flood of record, ff data are available. If data are not available, by placing the lowest floor at least three (3) feet above the ordinary high water level, or by conducting a technical evaluation to determine effects of proposed construction upon flood stages and flood flaws and to establish a flood protection elevation. Under all three (3) approaches, technical evaluations shall be done by a qualified- engineer or hydrologist consistent with parts 6120.5000 to 6120.6200 governing the management of flood plain areas. If more than one (1) approach is used, the highest flood protection elevation determined shall be used for placing structures and other facilities; and c. Water-oriented accessory structures may have the lowest floor placed lower than the elevation determined in this item if the structure is construed of flood- resistant materials to the elevation, electrical and mechanical equipment is placed above the elevation and, if long duration flooding is anticipated, the structure is built to withstand ice action and wind-driven waves and debris. (2) Water-oriented accessory structures. Each lot may have one (1) water-oriented accessory structure not meeting the normal structure setback in section 20-481(a) ff this water-oriented accessory structure complies with the following provisions: a. The structure or facility shall not exceed ten (10) feet in height, exclusive of safety rails, and cannot occupy an area greater than two hundred fifty (250) square feet. Detached decks shall not exceed eight (8) feet above grade at any point. Supp. No. 8 1196 (3) (4) (5) ZONING § 20-481 _ . ... ..~.~-~".~ ,' .. b. The Setback of the structure or facility from the ordinary high water level shall be at least ten (10) feet;, c. The structure or facility shall be treated to reduce visibility as viewed from public waters and adjacent shorelands by vegetation, topography, increased setbacks or color, assuming summer, leaf-on conditions; d. The roof may be used as a deck with safety rails, but shall not be enclosed or used as a storage area; e. The structure or facility shall not be designed or used for human habitation and shall not contain water supply or sewage treatment facilities; and · f. As an alternative for general development and recreational development waterbod- ies, water-oriented accessory structures used solely for watercraf~ storage, and including storage of related boating and water-oriented sporting equipment, may occupy an area of up to four hundred (400) square feet provided the maximum width of the structure is twenty (20) feet as measured parallel to the configura- tion of the shoreline. Stairway, lifos and landings. Stairways and lifos are the preferred alternative to major topographic alterations for achieving access up ad down bluffs and steep slopes to shore areas. Stairways and lif~s shall meet the following design requirements:- - a. Stairways and Ii_frs shall not exceed four (4) feet in width On residential lots. Wider stairways may be used for commercial properties, public open-space recreational properties, and planned unit developments; b. Landings for stairways and lif~s on residential lots shall not exceed thirty-two (32) square feet in area. Landings larger than thirty-two (32) square feet may be used for commercial properties, public open-space, and recreational properties'; c. Canopies or roofs are not allowed on stairways, lii~s, or landings; d. Stairways, lifos, and landings may be either constructed above the ground on posts or pilings, or placed into the ground, provided they are designed and built in a manner that ensures control of soil erosion; e. Stairways, lif~, and landings shall be located in the most visually inconspicuous portions of lots, as viewed from the surface of the public water assuming hummer, leaf-on conditions, whenever practical; and f. Facilities such as ramps, lif~s, or mobility paths for physically handicapped persons are also allowed for achieving access to shore areas, provided that the dimensional and performance standards of subitems a. to e. are complied with in addition to the requirements of Minnesota Regulations, Chapter 1340. Significant historic sites. No structure shall be placed on a significant historic site in a manner that affects the values of the site unless adequate information about the site has been removed and documented in a public repositorya Steep slopes. The planning director shall evaluate possible soil erosion impacts and development visibility from public waters before issuing a permit for construction of Supp. No. 9 1196. § 20-481 CHANHASSEN CITY CODE sewage treatment systems, roads, driveways, structures, or other improvements on steep slopes. When determined necessary, conditions shall be attached to issued permits to prevent erosion and to preserve existing vegetation screening of structures, vehicles, and other facilities as viewed from the surface of public waters, assuming summer, leaf-on vegetation. (D Height of structures. All structures in residential districts, except churches and nonres- idential agricultural structures, shall not exceed thirty-five (35) feet in height. (Ord. No. 217, § 4, 8-22-94) Sec. 20-482. Shoreland alterations. (a) Generally. Alterations of vegetation and topography shall be regulated to prevent erosion into public waters, fix nutrients, preserve shoreland aesthetics, preserve historic values, prevent bank slumping, and protect fish and wildlife habitat. (b) Vegetation alterations. (1) (2) Vegetation alteration necessary for the construction of structures and sewage treat- ment systems and the construction of roads and parking areas regulated by section 20-484 of this article are exempt from the following vegetation alteration standards. Removal or alteration of vegetation is allowed subject to the following standards: a. Intensive ~regetation clearing within the shore and bluff impact zones and On steep slopes is not allowed. Intensive vegetation clearing for forest land conver- sion to another use outside of these areas is allowable if permitted as part of a development approved by the city council as a conditional use if an erosion control and sedimentation plan is developed and approved by the soil and water conservation district in which the property is located. b. In shore and bluff impact zones and on steep slopes, limited clearing of trees and shrubs and cutting, pruning, and trimming of trees is allowed to provide a view of the water from the principal dwelling site and to accommodate the placement of stairways and landings, picnic areas, access paths, beach and watercraft access areas, and permitted water-oriented accessory structures or facilities, provided that: 1. The screening of structures, vehicles, or other facilities as viewed from the water, assuming leaf-on conditions, is not substantially reduced; 2. Along rivers, existing shading of water surfaces is preserved; 3. The above provisions are not applicable to the removal of trees, limbs, or branches that are dead, diseased, or pose safety hazards; and 4. The clearing be limited to a strip thirty (30) percent of lot width or thirty~:: (30) feet, whichever is lesser, parallel to the shoreline and extending inward within the shore and bluff impact zones. (Ord. No. 217, § 4, 8-22-94; Ord. No. 251, § 1, 4-8-96) Supp. No. 9 1196.2 ,?' =,, Attachment 8 CITY OF MINNETRISTA Current Standards Following is the language from the City of Minnetrista's web site regarding lakeshore setback regulations: P2. What are the Lakeshore setback regulations? No principal structure or building addition shall be located closer to the ordinary high water mark than the greater of' a) Seventy-five (75)feet in all zoning districts except R2DB where the setback diminishes to fifty (50)feet, or b) A line which is drawn between the two closes riparian principal structures on either side (at the forward most protrusion * toward the water) of a proposed building addition or new structure, or c) The average setback of the two adjacent, riparian, principal structures on either side of a proposed building addition or new structure. For purposes of calculating the average, begin measuring at the fom4;ard most protrusion (toward the water). *protrusion shall include any part of the principal structure, such as decks, part of the dwelling unit, porches, etc. Protrusion shall not include slabs, detached buildings, detached garages, etc. For purposes of applying subsection b and c, if the adjacent riparian principal structures are greater than 200feet from the structure in question, these sections shall not apply. www. ci. minnetrista.mn.us/web_txt/plaqfaq, htm Attachment 9 CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MAY 15, 2001 Acting Chair Sidney called the Planning Commission meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: LuAnn Sidney, Rich Slagle, Uli Sacchet, and Craig Claybaugh MEMBERS ABSENT: Alison Blackowiak and Deb Kind STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; Sharmin A1-Jaff, Senior Planner; and Lori Haak, Water Resources Coordinator Public Present for all items: Name Address Janet & Jerry Paulsen Debbie Lloyd 7305 Laredo Drive 7302 Laredo Drive CONSIDER AMENDMENT TO THE CITY CODE CHAPTER 20 REGARDING LAKESHORE PLACEMENT OF STRUCTURES. Lori Haak presented the staff report on this item. Sidney: Questions of Lori. Sacchet: Yeah, I do have some questions. But first-of all I really want to commend you about the report- that you did, the previous one. I really, think you did a fantastic job in terms of identifying the Problem. In terms of putting the intent and the goals in place and research and solutions. And I like your recommendation a lot at that time too. And ! do understand to some extent why with the current report rewording to get rid of the thom rather than find a better solution. Now it's still, I mean my comments of the original discussion still apply in that sense. My question specifically to the current recommendation, current report is there are two questions. When you say it could be leading to a taking or a punitive thing, that's very legalistic terms. I figure I know where that comes from. If we use your alternate solution, that puts a little bit of frame around it. Wouldn't it be up to the way those roles are implemented and worded with that would determine whether we push them too far that it would become punitive, that it become a taking? Or if we do this, what do you call an adaptation of the Minnetrista standard, does that necessarily by the framework it defines lead to this negative outcomes unavoidably? Haak: The strict legal interpretation of anything of this nature, and I've talked with Roger about it a lot because after our last discussion I got the feeling that you understood what was going on and wanted to implement something inbetween. And in the course of my conversations with him it became very apparent that the only real way to completely eliminate the takings issue is to do what staff is recommending. Anything other than that, because basically from a legal standpoint you are entitled to a view or you are entitled only to your lot. And so if you start putting things more stringent than the DNR setbacks, you get into that muddy water right away. Planning Commission Meeting - May 15, 2001 Sacchet: Yeah, but there are two aspects. One is the taking or the punitive element, I have a hard time accepting that that would come from the wording of trying to put more of a framework in place. I mean that must more come of the way we implement it. That' s really my question. I mean if it becomes a punitive situation, a taking situation, then isn't that because we are implementing it in a very stringent way? It's not because we're trying to put a framework around it to have something to work with to balance it out. And then a second point I really think is very important. I think you made that very clear last time we had this discussion on this topic. We are not interested in the aspect of view protection. We are interested in the aspect of balancing the setbacks. I think you have to be very careful because the view thing is a bad news thing. Haak: But it may be that way, but that is the origin of the ordinance that exists. I wasn't on staff when that happened but Kate has informed me and other members have shared with me that that was part of the concern, and one of the main concerns if I'm not mistaken, with that original ordinance. So while it is maybe not what this planning commission, and maybe even this council is concerned with, it's definitely part of the picture. Sacchet: Of the original picture? Haak: Right. And I don't necessarily think they're inextricable. I think that they're hand in hand, even if they're not arm in arm. I think they're somewhat related so. Sacchet: How about, I saw you kind of jumping there Kate. Aanenson'. Well I agree with Lori. I think that the two are woven together. As far as a view protection, you could require someone to maintain a certain setback but the neighboring property, if they wanted to put a boathouse or something down there, still has that right so the two, it becomes onerous to say you have to setback but now I can go back and do something else to my property. Because the goal is to meet the minimum and work with the person to say, you know this is the neighborhood standard but 75 foot is the minimum. Sacchet: How about where the wording per se would lead to the punitive taking type of situations or versus the implementation of it and maybe you would have that discretion. Aanenson: ...we're not considering here is you have to look at each lot and topography's also going to drive a lot of these too. Whether the type of house they want. Some of the lakeshore setbacks. There's different factors that go into consideration so what we're looking at is a perfectly flat lot with a common lakeshore, you know. The nuances come in when you've got topography and undulating lakeshore. Then it becomes very complex and it can be very punitive and that's the problem with the way it's written now. It doesn't take those into consideration. Sacchet: I have one more question if I may Madam Chair. One of the reasoning is that having some restriction or some sort of standard creates more work for everybody. Aanenson: I wouldn't say it creates more work. It causes ambiguity in the interpretation. That's not the problem. We want to be clear that we're interpreting the same way and treating people the same. It's not a work issue. It's just to be clear that everyone's being treated the same. Sacchet: Now the reason in the summary, it's difficult to administer. It may infringe on property owners, but the third point I have a question about usually there's cooperation and people cooperate and Planning Commission Meeting - May 15, 2001 work together which is certainly the best situation. And so in that case you don't need anything. I totally agree but what do we do if they don't cooperate? Isn't that when we need a rule? I mean shouldn't we have a rule for when people don't cooperate? Isn't that part of our responsibility? Haak: Well that gets into basically what your decision is as a planning commission. Do you think you need a rule for the, you know however many percent who will not cooperate. Do we need to legislate for that or do we need to make an ordinance for that? And that's something that from a staff perspective we'd like to be able to work that out between the property owners. Like I said in the report, there's a lot of times where simple orientation may be making the building face a different direction. Putting some additional screening, something like that is going to solve some of those problems. Maybe talking about, a little bit more about maybe home design or something like that. And that won't necessarily fix every case but I believe it will fix the lion share. Sacchet: Well that answers my questions, thank you. Sidney: Other questions of staff?. Slagle: Yes Madam Chair. If I can ask Lori, when you refer to maybe positioning a house one way or screening as another option between homeowners or property owners, if the homeowner that perhaps is inflicting the potential pain on the one who's requesting screening or what not, if they say no. They say hey, I bought this property. I'm within the DNR setbacks. You know I mean, do we legally have the right to refuse their request to build a house there? I mean it sounds like a simple question but. Aanenson: No, if they meet the setbacks. Slagle: Exactly. So if this, if the suggestion to eliminate are more stringent, whatever the regulations and we revert back to the DNR, then as much as we might try to resolve it, they do have the right to say no. You know I'm building my house. Haak: Bottom line. Slagle: And I should just throw out that I support that. That approach. Claybaugh: I have a few questions. One is just to touch on what Uli had stated. I do believe that people coming in to the city need a starting point, both for the marketing and the feasibility to determine whether that lot is going to work for a particular buyer. They need someplace to start so I think it's important that something's in place in it basically defines what's going to work for the city. I agree with, I think that the DNR restrictions should be stringent enough. I don't know if there's something that, I understand the blending issue but I think that it just ends up being a very slippery slope. Sidney: I'd like to open this up to a public hearing. We're not obligated to do so but if anyone would like to address the commission, please come forward and state your name and address. Jerry Paulsen: Jerry Paulsen, 7305 Laredo Drive. I guess the question you had raised and I'm not sure what the answer is. If this originated from the DNR recommended code, then it would be justified I think to leave it in. And we're not sure, we sent for a copy of the. Aanenson: I'd be happy to answer that question because I wrote that amendment. It was specific to one subdivision on Lake Minnewashta. How the ordinance got in place. That's currently in place. Planning Commission Meeting - May 15, 2001 Slagle: Say that again. Aanenson: The code amendment, the amendment that we're using right now for lakeshore setback, that you have to average, was written for a specific subdivision that came in on Lake Minnewashta. Was that your question? Sacchet: If I may clarify. I think we have a slight misunderstanding. What Mr. Paulsen is asking, whether this restriction of the blending element actually came from the DNR or not. I believe from the staff report I understand it does not. It was an addition on top of the DNR framework. Aanenson: Correct. And that was a city initiated ordinance, right. Jerry Paulsen: Most of these shoreland codes were modeled after the DNR language anyway, but this is not you're saying? Aanenson: Right. Haak: The shoreland ordinance was approved by the DNR and it does meet it's standards but it's also more stringent than the DNR standards and this particular, like Kate was saying, this particular portion of it is nothing that the DNR has. Aanenson: It was amended after the shoreland regs were adopted. Jerry Paulsen: So there is a precedent set that there is code that's more stringent than DNR guidelines. Eden Prairie has higher setbacks. Higher or wider, width lot requirements so this would be falling in that category I guess. Which is past mustard before but this is whether we want to change it I guess. Sidney: Other comments from anyone? If not I'll close the public hearing. So we have time now for a few more comments from commissioners. Anybody? I guess we made comments already. Sacchet: I can make more. Sidney: Okay. Sacchet: I personally feel that it's good to go beyond just the DNR minimum restrictions. We do that in a fair amount of other things in the city. It's commonly done and I think from an environmental viewpoint that's a supportable situation. I personally feel pretty strongly that I would like to adopt the alternative language that you're proposing rather than just make it a free for all. I feel that it is our responsibility as a city to put these protective elements in place for the case when people don't cooperate. And I do also believe that when it becomes a negative thing, if punitive or taking issue as it's called by the legal framework, then it would be a flaw in our implementation of it and not a flaw in having some regulation in place. I would consider it a flat not having some regulation in place, but I would want to make it very clear in how I'd like to pass this on as a recommendation to the council that this is in view of a setback regulation and not in view of a view protection framework. That' s my position on this. Claybaugh: I guess I have a question then. If it isn't a view issue, what is the driving factor then? With respect to the setback. As long as you met the environmental requirements of the 75 or 150 foot setback, and view is not the primary consideration, then what is the mechanism that's driving it? Planning Commission Meeting - May 15, 2001 Sacchet: Are you asking me? Claybaugh: To exceed the DNR standards. What is the mechanism that, what is the driving force behind it if you're not citing the view as the primary element? Sacchet: The view is one of the elements but it's not the driving element. The way I see it, it's the driving element is to have the neighborhood in a harmonious, homogenous build and not having it very staggered. As far as where that is reasonable, and I think one of the problems why we had this come in front of us is the cases where you have them very far set apart, it's not reasonable to try to line them up. I mean if one is 1,000 feet and the other one is 100 feet, it doesn't make sense to line them up. But if you have two that are 150 feet, and there comes another one and wants to go 75 feet, I think it would make sense to ask that to be a little further setback. Not primarily because the view of the neighbors, but of the appearance of the whole neighborhood. Claybaugh: I have another question for staff. On all these properties that have gone in in the past before some of these were implemented, what was the most stringent setback? Was it 150 feet for unsewered properties? Haak: It was, for unsewered, yes. It was 150. Claybaugh: For how far back does that go? As far as you can remember. Haak: Yeah. Claybaugh: Okay. I would be willing to support that up to the 150 feet. If someone consciously chose to move their property back more than 150 feet, then they made that decision at that time. I don't think other people should be penalized for blending above and beyond that 150 foot. Haak: Okay. Sidney: I'd like to make a few comments. I agree with staff's recommendation. Since I've been on the Planning Commission we've seen a few of these applications come before us and each is such a unique situation. It's almost like dealing with a variance and I think it's really difficult in this case. I appreciate Commissioner Sacchet's idea that we should have a little bit more framework but it's very difficult in all these unique situations with an undulating shoreline and who knows what houses in different orientations. If we're starting off with a subdivision and we could plan everything out, it would be fine but shoreline is a unique situation. And I agree with the idea that it really should be a staff and applicant and neighbor kind of discussion that you work for the best solution and that way. And I think it would be very difficult to come up with another setback or similar verbiage to what we have here that we're considering eliminating. So I do support the elimination of that part of the ordinance. It's just too hard to interpret. Really too hard in my view. So any other comments? Okay. Could I have a motion please? Sacchet: You don't want my motion. My motion's not going to carry. Claybaugh: Well I can support number 2. Put a maximum of 150 feet. I think when people make the decision to go beyond that. Sacchet: Okay, let's try that. Planning Commission Meeting - May 15, 2001 Slagle: Craig, where are you seeing number 2? Claybaugh: Option number 2, adopt the standards based on Minnetrista. Slagle: Okay. Sacchet: There are two options. Claybaugh: It gives them a little greater latitude. My concern is that it, like I said, if you get people that are out building back 200-250 feet, and then people that have the option under the DNR standards to go to 75 feet are, have to blend with that 250 feet, I think the maximum should be what they were originally held to at 150 feet. At that point that's where the blending ends. Slagle: Let me ask staff if I may Madam Chair, is that going to be easy to administer? Aanenson: Herein lies the problem because the problem is, isn't always internal into a subdivision. It's when you have a new subdivision next to an old subdivision. That's what precipitated this ordinance. Everybody in the neighborhood adjacent was following the 150-200 plus. Now a piece of property building next to it, so there they are setting a new neighborhood standard, as LuAnn was saying. Now it's consistent with that neighborhood but where the two converge is where the rub came about. And that's what precipitated this discussion. So it isn't always that there's a standard set within that neighborhood, because you might have a new neighborhood setting a standard. Or someone adding on later and so there's all kinds of nuances. Claybaugh: You're talking about a couple different things though. Are we focusing on a transition area where a specific rub is or are we looking at the global perspective. Aanenson: This is applied carte blanche is that's what we're trying to say and it's not a periaect world. You've got peninsula's. You' ve got all, and this applies universal application and' that's the problem with it. Claybaugh: How do you see Option 2? Aanenson: We said the 75 feet because if we could put in, if your old neighborhood abutting a new, you know there's just too many variables to put in there. Sacchet: Madam Chair, I'd like to follow-up on your idea a little bit Craig. Right now we're saying with this alternate wording basically that there would be an averaging of the next, of the first out point structure. So like a line between the structures. Or the average. Can you explain a little bit what that actually means, an alternate language? Haak: Sure. For Option 2, the first standard that you would apply would be to draw a line, like we have in the past, between the rear most points of the existing structures and that the center proposed structure would have to meet that setback. That line. The lesser of either that line or the mathematical average so if you get 2 structures that are again 100 and 200 feet apart, then you would add those together. Divide it by 2 and get 150. In most cases just so the Planning Commission is aware, those end up being really close to each other in most cases. The thing that I worked with Roger a lot on would be eliminating any structures that are outside of about 200 feet from the proposed structure because that's where we get into Planning Commission Meeting - May 15, 2001 the cases like we had in Minnewashta Landings where you've got one that's setback over 1,000 feet and one that's maybe at 150. And so when we start eliminating those, it brings it closer to the kind of, I'll call it continuity, even though I've been bugged for doing it, that I think the Planning Commission is looking for. Sacchet: So to use Craig's idea, if we would only want to apply that if the structures are not further away than 150 feet, that's what we're saying. Claybaugh: If I understood you correctly, at any point in the past if someone came in and wanted to put up a property on lakeshore property that was unsewered and come within 150 feet, they had that option. Should they choose to go back further than 250 feet, I think the one constant in this entire discussion is 150 feet and the 75 feet period. The rest of it is you know, that's your moving target so I think if people make a conscious decision to go outside of that framework, then the blending issue I think they've kind of forfeited part of that. If somebody decides to build back 300 feet and have a big front yard out to the lakeshore, that's the benefit to it. Sacchet: So if I may add to that, to like your point Kate if we have two developments bordering at each other, and let's say one has 150 and the other one has the 75, that would mean that the house bordering has to be at 110 or whatever. Would that be a workable solution? Because I think we have a very good point here. Claybaugh: I'm interested in the same question. That's what I'm asking. You're a whole lot closer to make it working in my mind if they're limited to 75 and you're limited... Aanenson: Unfortunately we don't have all the examples of the problems with this ordinance in front of you but there's instances where you're forcing someone to go back further than 75-80 feet. Now they need a variance because they can't push it back further because they've got a wetland behind them or whatever so. Claybaugh: Well 80/20. We're not going to cover everything. Aanenson: Right, exactly. Claybaugh: Where do we fall with the 80%? I mean what is the best solution that falls? We know we're not going to cover everything. That's a given. Haak: The question that I might raise, and I thought about this a little bit because actually Commissioner Kind came up with a similar solution. And I'll give her credit where credit is due because I've thought about this because of her prodding, but the question in my mind then becomes do you use the 100. Okay, you have Lot A that's set back 75 feet. The house is set back 75 feet. You have Lot C that is 500 feet. And it falls within all the requirements of what we're proposing as far as Minnewashta. Or Minnetrista goes. My question to you is, do you use the 150 feet as part of the average? So would you add 150 plus the 75 and then average that? Would you draw a line from the 150 to the 75? Or would you just make the setback? There was one other scenario. I just see a couple different. Claybaugh: Well they had 3 different form criteria and you'd exercise all 3 and take, as I understood, the most stringent of the 3. But I think when you get outside that 150 foot setback then that's where your multiples get... Planning Commission Meeting - May 15, 2001 Haak: Actually this, the proposed would be the lesser of, it would have to at minimum meet the DNR requirements and then it would be the lesser of either the line or the average. Sorry. Just to clarify. Sacchet: Now what we are trying to propose, and I think if I understand you correctly and I like that idea is that we would not count something that's further back than 150. Haak: You wouldn't count it at all. Sacchet: The maximum is 150. Claybaugh: Exercise the blending rule beyond 150 feet. Haak: So you would just match the setback of structure A then? Claybaugh: If somebody's back further than 150 feet, it's be default. It's 150 feet. Aanenson: I would say that's, the ones that are beyond 150 are going to be a small percentage. Very small percentage. Sacchet: They're the parts that made the problems though. Aanenson: No. We've got lots that again, when you do the averaging, because of the lakeshore setback, the way the roads are placed, right. So by taking the 150, yes. You've eliminated some of the problems but probably... Claybaugh: Well that's what you'd...I mean we wouldn't want to create more problems but anytime you start getting out of reasonable boundaries, and like you said, if somebody had the opportunity to build within 150 feet and they made a conscience decision to build outside of that, that's the decision that they made. I don't think that the person coming in after the fact to build the property. Aanenson: Right but that's not the majority of the problems. Right. Claybaugh: Okay. Could you identify the primary problem that we're after then? Aanenson: There's undulating lakeshore. Claybaugh: Okay. Is that the 80% or the 20%? Aanenson: 80%. 80%. The lake is all, you know you've got different setback. Carver Beach, completely different setbacks. Minnewashta, the old neighborhoods. Setback 150 plus. And then the newer developments all meet the 75. Lake Riley, cabins. A lot of the older cabins significantly under 75 feet predominantly. Claybaugh: Okay, so if we were to focus in on the 80%, one of the criteria we're saying is that it's undulating shoreline. Okay. Aanenson: I would say that's the major reason, right. Planning Commission Meeting - May 15, 2001 Claybaugh: So to get to the heart of the matter, like you said, if we can't address all 100%, tell us what direction we' re supposed to be going here. Aanenson: I think by using the 75 you're getting to the, that was what we'd say would be the, gets us there. Claybaugh: ...anything more restrictive. Aanenson: COrrect. Slagle: Including the blending? Aanenson: Correct. Claybaugh: That was the concern that I understood down here that if we did that and someone came in then we'd have no leverage at that point. They can come in, plop in a house at 75 feet and then it's said and done. Aanenson: Right, that's the down side of it. Claybaugh: As long as they can meet the hard cover requirements and the rest of it. Aanenson: That's correct, that's the down side. Claybaugh: So then you don't have any leverage in order to blend that with the neighbor or to have that, if somebody doesn't want to cooperate, like Uli said~ you sit down at the table and they say if we're within our rights to build at 75 feet, you can't address the neighbors concerns. Is that correct? I mean at that point if you adopt solely the DNR standards, that's my concern. I mean I believe that there's :a certain degree of need to be able to sit down with the neighbors and say okay, well you've been here. These are kind of the circumstances. To me it's logical to sit down with somebody can say well, you know at the time this house was built it could have been built at 150 feet so we can't give you credit because you went beyond that. Aanenson: I would say most people that come in today build to the minimum, or pretty close to the minimum. They may give themselves room for a deck or something but most people, even on a wetland setback, people are pretty close to the minimum. Claybaugh: So as I understand it, and I might just have the whole wrong view on it. On one hand we're trying to put something out there that's a little more predictable. Little less brain damage. Is that? Haak: I think more fair. Aanenson: More fair. It's punitive for people that come in. It's very punitive. Can't interpret it. We've had to issue a lot of variances so we're trying to make, level the playing field. Claybaugh: Well I guess I agree with Uli then that this is, the ordinance as it sits right now as I read it is, provides a lot of latitude for the city. I mean that provides a lot of latitude. So I don't know how it can become punitive without the city having a hand in that. Is that an accurate statement or am I? Planning Commission Meeting - May 15, 2001 Aanenson: Are you talking about the language when a structure exists on either side? Claybaugh: Well the current ordinance as you said is, it's lengthy and it provides a lot of different scenarios. Aanenson: Well the only thing we'd be taking out would be the one sentence that we're considering striking out and that's the interpretation question. The city attorney said that's a little bit ambiguous and that' s what, the part that' s struck out that says when a structure exists on either side, the setback of a proposed structure shall be greater of the distance. That's on page 5. That's the ambiguity that we're trying to clarify. So if you want to put some other language in there. Haak: And that's what the Minnetrista would be in addition to what exists under the table there on page 5. Claybaugh: So I better understand, somebody drafted Option number 2. What were you thinking when you drafted it? What were you trying to accomplish? What were you throwing at us? Haak: Basically taking from what I gleaned at the last Planning Commission, I understood that the Planning Commission was still interested in some sort of a blending. What I was trying to do was basically put a framework around it. Try to make something that staff could work with. Sacchet: Did you get legal feedback for that? Haak: Yes. On the Minnetrista ordinance, the variation. Sacchet: The new version, yes. Haak: He and I worked very closely on that. It actually went back and forth as far as words were concerned, back word smithing so, if the Planning Commission does adopt something, that' s why I provided it because that's the direct you were going at the last meeting. And I knew that my recommendation wasn't very popular and I wanted to make sure that I provided you with something so ' we weren't starting from ground zero because we had had some, I've worked on this a lot and wanted to present something that was an option. Slagle: Madam Chair, I have a question for staff. And I think maybe Lori you addressed it but just want to be clear. Has the city attorney conveyed to you or to Kate or staff that the blending ordinance is legally, I mean can we legally succeed. Claybaugh: To legally enforce that. Slagle: Yes, because if the answer is no then I think we're spinning our wheels and the answer is the DNR setbacks period. Claybaugh: Right, I agree with that. Slagle: So I mean I don't want to be voting for Option 2 if the first time it comes up someone hires an attorney and they come in and say you know what, this isn't. Planning Commission Meeting - May 15, 2001 Haak: I, and Roger and I have had that discussion and it goes back to the first conversation that we had about when we were talking about view protection more. I hate to bring it up because Uli's giving me the look. Slagle: And I understand from an environmental concern the desire for that. Haak: Certainly. Slagle: But I've got to tell you, if I don't see something from the attorney saying that this is indeed enforceable, then I don't want to vote on anything. Claybaugh: Well I'll back up, I'll go one further. I would expect that it wouldn't be put in front of us as an option if it wasn't enforceable. Okay, so let's deal with that one first. Haak: My question to Roger was, and I asked him point blank. I said can we have something on the books, are people entitled to more than, and again we were talking about view so are people entitled to more view than what is in front of their lot. His answer was no. But people regulate things like this all the time. So it's not that well, legally it wouldn't stand I don't, I believe without being an attorney myself, from the perspective I got from him. Claybaugh: Well that's why we have a city attorney, and we're asking what the city attorney, his opinion is on that. Or her opinion is I don't know. Haak: My understanding is that we can try to do what we want, but whether or not it ends up in court is a different story. Claybaugh: Well getting back to the question of fairness then, I mean I just brought up that it was more predictable and the rest and your response was that something more fair. So what you're telling me is that we' re bringing something up that, it doesn't sound terribly fair if-it's not enforceable under the law. Haak: Well when we were talking about fairness we were talking about the 75 foot, the DNR requirements. So that is, I mean it's across the board. Claybaugh: So we're going outside legal boundaries to be fair? Aanenson: I would prefer we frame this discussion area. Our recommendation is what the city attorney says is people are allowed the 75 feet. You've asked for some other options. You can recommend whatever you choose to the city council. We've given you some other options. If you feel strongly that way and you want to recommend something to city council, I'm confident the city council on the advice of the city attorney will make a good recommendation. If that makes sense. Sacchet: Madam Chair, if I may jump into this. Actually the aspect that the blending ordinance, as a blending ordinance would not be enforceable legally is one thing that Commissioner Kind and I brought back from our government training pointing out that a blending ordinance, and then we get to this later tonight. And like it is in the other agenda item, would be most likely contrary to the uniformity law. Would probably not stand up in court. Because it's not treating everybody the same. Now I'm not lawyer but using my common sense I would take the position that what we're, if we adopt this language, we are not violating the uniformity law in the sense that we're not treating everybody the same way. We're trying to bring it between how people have been treated in one point and how they're treated now Planning Commission Meeting - May 15, 2001 with the setback situation, with the sewer situation. Because in the past people were treated that they had to be back the 150 feet and now the minimum setback from the DNR that we have as an ordinance in the city is 75 feet. So I've been saying is that when two areas like that come together, that we're trying to have a little bit of a mitigation because we could say we're not treating the ones that were there before the same as we're treating the new ones. So I really personally don't see a conflict of the uniformity aspect. I think we're trying to put something in place that depending how it's implemented by the city, we would have a little bit of a handle if somebody is not cooperating, which is very minimal. I mean if we say we only apply this in a setback with a maximum that can be counted into this calculation is 150 feet, then we can very well justify where 150 feet comes from, we're not trying to treat people differently. We're trying to find a balance between the different treatments and different points of time. Aanenson: I just want to clarify one thing. The DNR standards didn't change. The city, whether you had sewer or not sewer is what changed so it wasn't the ordinance. That ordinance. It was the fact whether or not you had a septic system or you had a sewer system. Sacchet: The framework. Aanenson: Right, so and the time period. Sacchet: Couldn't we then say that we're punitive to the people that build without sewer? Because all of a sudden they have somebody have... Slagle: Well I wouldn't say we. Sacchet: No but the city, the framework, right. I mean it could really go both ways. I don't want to argue that point too much but I still feel that we should give this a shot. With the addition that the maximum countable would be 150. I think that to me puts it into the balanced framework. Slagle: If it would help the group in it's thinking currently, I would not be in favor of any blending at this point.- Listening to what I have heard regarding staff and issues and unique issues and, I mean it just seems even with 150 you're going to have people applying for "hardship" and pros and cons and so I just want you to know that right now I'm personally not in favor of any blending. Sidney: I guess I'd kind of like to bring this to some motion here because it sounds like we're more in an open discussion mode right now. So I guess I'm wondering about how we might proceed, a question for you Kate. Claybaugh: I'm sorry, go ahead and finish your question. I have a question when you're done. Sidney: I guess my thought is, what's before us is that you're uncomfortable and we don't feel comfortable with this current language. Aanenson: Correct. Sidney: And my feeling is that we could act on this and eliminate that. Aanenson: Correct. And so we've given you some options and whatever options you feel strongly about with an intent, we'll pass those on to the City Council. Planning Commission Meeting - May 15, 2001 Sidney: Yeah. And I guess the question is if we should look at your recommendation to, and then do we need to substitute language right now? Aanenson: Sure. You can amend any of these in any way you see fit. That's fine. Sidney: At this point or some other point? Aanenson: Sure. No, right now. I mean if you wanted to make a motion and send it up, sure. Any one of these you want to modify, that's fine and then make that, whoever makes the motion, sure. Sidney: Well, I'm wondering if we're moving toward tabling this for. Claybaugh: No...I'm still, there's got to be a piece that I'm missing here. With the DNR standards, if we eliminate the current standards then we just adopt the DNR standards, is that accurate? Aanenson: Correct. Haak: We have, except we have those standards in place now so it's basically just eliminated in this one sentence. Claybaugh: Okay. And the origin for that one sentence was for a specific subdivision? Aanenson: Correct. Claybaugh: Okay. And you were trying to accomplish exactly what at that time? Aanenson: The circumstance would give us a significant setback in the unsewered area adjacent to a subdivision that was sewered. Different standards in place and the intent was to. Claybaugh: So if that comes along in-the future and we did both to just eliminate the current standards and adopt the DNR, how are you going to address that situation in the future is my question. That's the one piece that I'm missing. Aanenson: Right, and we've said that before. That's the down side, that's correct. Slagle: It'd be at 75 feet? Aanenson: Right. Claybaugh: And at that point you don't have any latitude to sit down with the perspective buyer and the existing homeowner and say can you do this, this and this and attempt some of those minor blending things. That's my only concern is that there's nothing in place then, not that you're trying to put too much in place. What are your concerns about that? I'm gathering from your recommendation that's the lesser of the evils. Aanenson: Right, because every one of these now we sit down with. Every one of them. It is very difficult to interpret and it's, people have to get surveys. It's onerous. There is a down side in some, it's going to, but that goes back to what are you entitled to and that's the discussion so. Planning Commission Meeting - May 15,2001 Slagle: And then if I can Madam Chair. My concern is that you sit down and even if you passed Option 2, we still don't know officially if it's legally enforceable and I think that's just a waste of your time and the applicant's time if it isn't or is, I'd rather just leave it at the DNR and everybody knows what it is and unfortunately for those, and believe me with sympathy, that have lots that are from the 150 feet. Claybaugh: How long ago did we go beyond the DNR standards? When was that done? Haak: I believe that was done in '95 or 6, yeah. Claybaugh: Okay. Beyond the situation that we identified, how prevalent is it where you've had to go through this exercise with. Aanenson: Every lakeshore lot we spend time on those, yeah. Finding out the adjoining properties. It's a requirement. You have to survey the adjoining property. See where they're setting back. If they don't have a file, a survey lot. Some of the other areas don't have a lot survey. Let me go back to what LuAnn was saying. Whatever you want to recommend forward to the city council, that's your discretion. If you feel comfortable doing that. Sidney: If we want to do what's recommended, that' s. Sacchet: May I make a motion? Sidney: Yes please. Sacchet: I like to make the motion that we adopt Option 2 with a new version of the third paragraph. I'd like to replace the third paragraph that should read something to the effect, the maximum setback used for calculating subsections (a) and (b) shall be 150 feet. Haak: Okay, so just to clarify your intent. It would be, if you have one structure that's set back 100 feet on one side. On the opposite side you have one that's set 300 feet back. You would draw the line or do the average between the 150 and the 100. Sacchet: Correct. Haak: Or do the mathematical average so you'd end up with 125, whichever is less onerous at that point. Sacchet: Exactly. Now the one thing I'm not sure is whether we want to say one more thing about undulating shoreline because that seems to be the stumbling block. Haak: I actually think that drawing a line does a real good job in those instances. Sacchet: It works pretty well for that? Haak: I think that if we. Sacchet: Looking at the examples, I really only saw one case where that undulating thing could get into problem which is on the first example where you have that thing, that protrusion out into the lake. Aanenson: Yes, like a peninsula. Planning Commission Meeting - May 15, 2001 Sacchet: Yeah, if you have like a peninsula that holds like one house or so, then you run into problems. That's one in all these examples. Haak: And to be quite honest, that's one they needed a variance anyway I believe so you still will see variances with something like this. I'm sure you'd still see it with 75 feet because that same example, most of those houses are set at 65 feet, or 60 feet, so if they even come in again, you're going to be looking at those anyway. Claybaugh: Can I ask a question? Does that help you at all? Haak: It certainly, coming from the perspective of the existing ordinance, we don't have a framework. We don't have a defined method for calculating the average setback. The two that I' ve provided you with are the ones that staff has traditionally used but they really hold no specific standing because it's not described in the ordinance so certainly this gives us more structure as far as that's concerned. Sidney: I'd like to request that you state where you found in the report and the page. Sacchet: Alright, let me be very specific. In the current report from May 7t~, on page 4 there is an alternate language proposed to replace the language that we want to strike out of the ordinance, which is the element that's more restrictive to the DNR. And it reads no structure shall be located closer to the ordinary high water mark than the setback in the above table, which is the DNR. Additionally, any structure, unless otherwise permitted by this article, shall exceed the lesser of the following two setbacks: (a) A line which is drawn between principle structures on the riparian lots on either side of the proposed structure at the forward most protrusion towards the water, or (b) The average setback of the principal structures from the ordinary high water mark on the lots on either side of the proposed structure. For purposes of calculating the average, begin measuring at the forward most protrusion towards the water. It' s my understanding that basically documents what staff has done without it being in an ordinance. Then the proposed language goes on defining what a protrusion is. Protrusion shall include ~any part of the principal structure such as decks, part of the dwelling unit, porches, etc. Protrusion shall not include slabs, detached buildings, detached garages, etc. I understand that's all being worked with the lawyer. Now the third part here that defines when subsections (a) and (b) shall not apply, I'm replacing with the wording, the maximum setback used for calculating subsections (a) and (b) shall be 150 feet. With the intent that that was the setback that was originally in place and I think that would solve certainly the problems that were mentioned that I'm aware of that this ran in in the past. That's what I'm making a motion for. Sidney: Okay, is there a second? Claybaugh: I'll second the motion. Sidney: Okay it's been moved and seconded. Sacchet moved, Claybaugh seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of amending Section 20-481. Placement, design, and height of structure to include the following language: No structure shall be located closer to the ordinary high water mark than the setback in the above table, which is the DNR. Additionally, any structure, unless otherwise permitted by this article, shall exceed Planning Commission Meeting - May 15, 2001 the lesser of the following two setbacks: (a) A line which is drawn between principle structures on the riparian lots on either side of the proposed structure at the forward most protrusion towards the water, or (b) The average setback of the principal structures from the ordinary high water mark on the lots on either side of the proposed structure. For purposes of calculating the average, begin measuring at the forward most protrusion towards the water. Protrusion shall include any part of the principal structure such as decks, part of the dwelling unit, porches, etc. Protrusion shall not include slabs, detached buildings, detached garages, etc. The maximum setback used for calculating subsections (a) and (b) shall be 150 feet. All voted in favor, except Slagle who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 3 to 1. Sidney: Okay, the motion does carry and will go onto city council, and what date would that be? Aanenson: June llb. Sidney: Okay. And nay because? I guess we traditionally had commissioners explain. Slagle: Well I think the nay is just because I think the blending issue is difficult, although I think intended well. Well intended but I think it's difficult to uphold and I just don't think I want to be encourage those kind of gray areas if you will. That' s about it. Sidney: Thank you. CONSIDER AMENDMENT TO THE CITY CODE CHAPTERS 18 AND 20, REGARDING THE USE OF PRIVATE DRIVES AND FLAG LOTS. Sharmin AI-Jaff presented the staff report on this item. Sidney: Okay, so no motion is required. Aanenson: No, we are meeting with the city attorney. Sharmin has spent hours on this. It's a huge undertaking. Because it's not only these two sections of the code, it also, if it's in the nuisance ordinance, what's the definition of street there whatever we do here so it is a huge undertaking and we don't want to cause more ambiguity so we're taking our time and making sure that we're proceeding in the right direction with the advice of the city attorney. Sidney: Questions of staff. Sacchet: Yeah Madam Chair. I basically have two questions. First of all I think you're doing a fantastic job. My two questions, one question. We started this, I mean this is 1, 2, 3, 4, the fifth or sixth report that's coming our way for this. And last time we looked at your proposed ordinance amendment and then we found two things. We found we wanted to say something in the intent type thing, and there is a place in the ordinance. 18-75, number 6 where you put that in. Also that would be specific building orientation increased setbacks could be requested in that framework. My first question, which is the smaller one is, is that just relating to the private street or also the flag lot or is the flag lot automatically have the private street? Haak, Lori From: Sent: To: Subject: Travis Germ u n dson [t ravis.germ undson @ dn r.state, m n. us] Tuesday, June 19, 2001 12:49 PM Ihaak@ci.chanhassen.mn.us Re: Potential Shoreland Ordinance Changes Attachment 10 Lori, Re :Shoreland Ordinance Structure Setback Amendment, City of Chanhassen, Carver County Based on the information forward to my office the three options proposed meet the Statewide Standards relating to structure setback requirements and compiles with Minnesota Rules, 6120.3300 Subp 3A . The amendment language proposed may reduce the overall setbacks currently in existence, however, setbacks will still meet the minimum standards and criteria to preserve quality of surface waters and economic and environmental standards of shoreland areas. The intent of the amendment is to reduce the complexity of the existing setback requirements and thus reduce the overall number of variances requested. DNR Waters has no outstanding concerns with the three proposed options. Please be aware that a typical shoreland amendment request by State Statue allows DNR 60 days to approve or deny the request, however, based on the nature of the request and the fact that amendment still is in compliance with statewide minimum standards, the 60 day timetable is not needed. Please submit a copy of the formally adopted ordinance to this office. Thank you for your cooperation on this matter, Travis Germundson Area Hydrologist 1200 Warner Rd. St. Paul, MN 55125 (651) 772-7914 CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 20 OF THE CHANHASSEN CITY CODE, THE ZONING ORDINANCE The City Council of the City of Chanhassen ordains' Section 1. Section 20-481 (a) shall be modified to read: Sec. 20-481. Placement, design, and height of structure. (a) Placement of structures on lots. When more than one (1) setback applies to a site, structures and facilities shall be located to meet all setbacks. Structures and onsite sewage treatment systems shall be setback (in feet) from the ordinary high water level as follows' Classes of Public Structures Structures Sewered Sewage Treatment Waters Unsewered System LAKES Natural environment Recreational development RIVERS 150 150 150 100 75 75 Agricultural and 100 50 75 tributary Whcn a structurc cxists on a lot on cithcr sidc, the sctback of a proposed structurc shall be thc grcatcr of thc distancc sct forth in thc abovc tablc or thc sctback of thc cxisting structurc. One (1) water-oriented accessory structure designed in accordance with section 20-482(e)(2)(b) of this article may be setback a minimum distance of ten (10) feet from the ordinary high water level. 2001. Section 2. This ordinance shall be effective immediately upon its passage and publication. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Chanhassen City Council this day of ATTEST: Todd Gerhardt, Acting City Manager Linda C. Jansen, Mayor (Published in the Chanhassen Villager on ,2001)