Agenda - Environmental Policy Board - 08/17/2015

Home

identifying a minimum buildable area standard won't necessarily achieve the intended goal of ensuring adequate space for typical homeowner improvements such as a rear yard deck and sufficient 'usable' area for a rear yard. City Code specifies minimum setback standards for a principal structure from front, side, side corner (lots that have frontage along two public roads), and rear lot lines. There is no minimum required setback for a principal structure to a wetland, floodplain, or storm sewer pipe and thus, if a proposed home complies with the established setbacks, the City cannot withhold issuing a Building Permit. Wetlands and storm sewer infrastructure are encumbered with drainage and utility easements and buildings are not allowed within these easements (without an Encroachment Agreement). But, there is no minimum required separation between a drainage and utility easement and a home (setbacks are only from property lines). Establishing a principal structure setback from a wetland, floodplain and storm sewer infrastructure would assist in reducing the number of conflicts that a future homeowner may encounter with common improvements. This approach would provide the City the tools to address a concern that has been raised on multiple occasions. A principal structure setback, if implemented, would need to be addressed as part of any proposed plat. In other words, the layout would need to demonstrate that each lot created could be improved with a house that meets all boundary setbacks as well as an established setback from these various features. This practice is already completed for existing setbacks. The civil engineer on the project would simply need to show this setback as well. Wetlands are already required to be delineated as part of a plat. Also, since this would only apply to the principal building and not open air decks or detached garages, a future property owner would not necessarily need to have survey conducted or a wetland delineation completed to ensure a minimum separation was maintained. Thus, the future homeowner is ensured a 'reasonable' improvement (deck, patio, etc.) as well as a 'reasonable' rear yard that can be used. The Board may have other ideas for how these potential conflicts could be avoided, or at least reduced, in the future. Staff is seeking discussion on the two concepts above as well as any additional thoughts. As a reminder, the policy issue being addressed is that of ensuring sufficient rear yard space for common homeowner improvements as well as providing a rear yard that most would consider reasonable and usable (as opposed to looking at water quality standards such as wetland protection). Action: Specific action will be based on discussion, but may including directing Staff to forward one or more potential solutions to the Planning Commission for consideration in advance of preparing an ordinance amendment. Examples of Issues that have Arisen Aerial Images City Council Case from July 14, 2015 City Council Minutes dated July 14, 2015 Summary of Issue Attachments Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date Tim Gladhill Tim Gladhill 08/14/2015 07:42 AM Chris Anderson (Originator) Chris Anderson 08/14/2015 08:21 AM Form Started By: Chris Anderson Started On: 08/12/2015 03:32 PM Final Approval Date: 08/14/2015