Agenda - Planning Commission - 01/02/1996

Home

CASE # ~ REVIEW PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE SHORELAND MANAGEMENT AND SCENIC RIVER ORDINANCE By: Zoning Administrator Sylvia Frolik Background: On July 3, 1989, the revised Statcwide Standards for '~/Ianagement of Shoreland Areas" rules became effectivei Under the authority of those new rules, the City of Ramsey must update its ordinance accor gly. Observations: The proposed ch,anges to code are enclosed: 1. Anything~ shown as a plain print strike-out or as a bold print is a recommended deletion or addition bY State Rules. i 2. Anythin~ shown with a bold and underline is a Staff recommended addition. 3. Anything shown as a bold and strike-out is a State requirement that Staff is proposing not to adopt.I 4. Anything shown with a plain print strike-out and underline is a current code that Staff is proposinI to delete. The following is~ a list of those sections in which the City Staff is proposing tO vary from State Rules and an ex .p~_anation for the basis of our proposal: Section 9.21.04,1Subd. 5.1. Cu_r~nt code for maximum structure height is 35 feet. State Rules establish a maxhla-m height of 25 feet. Staff is proposing 37 feet. Staff is also proposing to exclude that lant~uage that exempts churches and non-residential ag buildings from the height restriction. In o~ opinion, that language is discriminatory. The way this section is supposed to be regulated, it appe~ that you cannot build a 2-story $400,000 tudor home on Lake Ia.sca, but you could build a 50 foot high agrieultmal pole barn. Section 9.21.04, Sulxl. 5.2. This is proposing to increase the minimum lot area on other lots on a general developmental water from 10,000 to 10,800 square feet. Section ~ 9.21.07,~Subd. la. Again, Staff is proposing a height restriction of 37 feet to allow for the construction ~f the more upseale two and three story homes. Section 9.21.07,1Subd. la, Impervious Surface. The intent of this restriction is to protect the water quality. ~taff is of the opinion that you can better protect water quality by requiring development to sobmit a water quality management plan that complies with all state and local water quality standardsi rather than restricting the amount of developable space on a parcel. MAnimizing lot coverage does not necessarily protect or insure the water quality. The requirement restricts the use of the lot so tseverely that it could almost be considered a talcing. If you look at commercial property, for instance, the property owner purchases the property, develops the property to commercial stanches, and pays the higher commercial rate taxes. But, he or she can only use 1/3 of the lot for building and pavement and 2/3 of the lot for which he paid the high purchase price and continues to ~ay high commercial taxes on must lay dormant and be non-income producing.