Agenda - Planning Commission - 03/07/1995

Home

CASE # 5 REVIEW PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE SHORELAND MANAGEMENT ! AND SCENIC RIVER ORDINANCE By: Zoning Administrator Sylvia Frolik Background: On July 3, 1989,i the revised Statewide Standards for "Management of Shoreland Areas" rules became effectivel Under the authority of those new rules, the City of Ramsey must update its ordinance accordingly. r Observations: i The proposed ch~ges to code are enclosed:' 1. Anything Shown as a plain print strike-out or as a bold print is a recommended deletion or addition b~ State Rules. 2. Anything ~hown with a bold and underline is a Staff recommended addition. 3. Anything ~hown as a bold and strike-out is a State requirement that Staff is proposing not to adopt. 4. Anything Shown with a plain print swike-out and underline is a current code that Staff is proposing to delete. The following is a list of those sections in which the City Staff is proposing to vary from State Rules and an explanation for the basis of our proposal: Section 9.21.04, ~Ubd. 5.1. Current code for maximum structure height is 35 feet. State Rules establish a maxinium height of 25 feet. Staff is proposing 37 feet. Staff is also proposing to exclude that langflage that exempts churches and non-residential ag buildings from the height restriction. In our ~pinion, that language is discriminatory. The way this section is supposed to be regulated, it appea!'s that you cannot build a 2-story $400,000 tudor home on Lake Itasca, but you could build a 50 fobt high agricultural pole barn. Section 9.21.04, S~bd. 5.2. Th~s ~s proposing to ~ncrease the m~mmum lot area on other lots on a general developmental water from 10,000 to 10,800 square feet. Section 9.21.07, S}abd. la. Again, Staff is proposing a height restriction of 37 feet to allow for the construction ofithe more upscale two and three story homes. Section 9.21.07, S~ubd. la, Impervious Surface. The intent of this restriction is to protect the water quality. St~ff is of the opinion that you can better protect water quality by requiring development to subtnit a water quality management plan that complies with all state and local water quality standards, r~ther than restricting the amount of developable space on a parcel. Minimizing lot coverage does r~.t necessarily protect or insure the water quality. The requirement restricts the use of the lot so se~,erely that it could almost be considered a taking. If you look at commercial property, for insta~nce, the property owner purchases the property, develops the property to commercial stand,ds, and pays the higher commercial rate taxes. But, he or she can only use 1/3 of the lot for buildi~ng and pavement and 2/3 of the lot for which he paid the high purchase price and continues to pa), high commercial taxes on must lay dormant and be non-income producing.