Agenda - Environmental Policy Board - 08/17/2015

Home

Print Agenda Item Page 2 of 3 in size. The issues are primarily with the proximity of the rear of the home to the boundary of a wetland or floodplain. The issues are primarily 1) lack of space to construct a rear yard deck; and 2) lack of rear yard area to place fill and manage vegetation without additional restriction (what a typical home owner would traditionally consider a back yard). In certain circumstances, the limits of developable area behind the rear of the home is within a few feet of the back of the home, which does not leave a large amount of area for decks, patios, or the ability to grade and landscape the yard. Presently, City Code does not specify specify a minimum buildable area or any setback from any of the elements noted above, just gross (total) lot size and minimum lot width in addition to traditional setbacks to property lines. Based on the increasing frequency of requests for encroachments within these elements or easements that encumber these elements, this discussion topic has been created. Also, due to previous policy discussions circa 2008/2009, Staff desires to discuss the matter with City Council before forwarding the discussion topic to EPB and Planning Commission. As can be seen in the attached examples, sometimes there is little to no room between a proposed home and a wetland, floodplain, or storm sewer pipe (and their associated easement). As part of the Building Permit review process, Staff reviews the Permit for compliance with bulk standards such as setbacks and structure height, but also looks at location of patio/sliding glass door in relation to these features and comments on possible future conflicts. However, without any standard in City Code, Staff cannot withhold approving the permit if it complies with all other bulk standards. There is not a City Code provision that allows Staff to prohibit the utilization of a patio door, even if it is evident that the rear yard will not sustain an improvement. This has proven to be a significant issue with certain lots. A significant reason for bringing this to the attention of the City Council is to also inform the City Council of the increasing amount of Staff time used to administer these standards and work with Property Owners through the process of approval for these challenging lots and the frustration it is causing amongst multiple property owners. The issue seems to magnify with each subsequent sale as the distance between original builder and current owner expands. Staff does acknowledge that part of the reason for an increase in these requests and complaints is also a result of a declining lot inventory with more challenging and/or less desirable lots remaining Goals of Policy Discussion 1. Minimize common conflicts for future property owner after initial construction. 2. Ensure sufficient area for future rear decks, a common improvement. 3. Ensure sufficient area for back yard (as interpreted by average resident). 4. Provide language that is easily interpreted with minimal 'if, then' or contingent scenarios. 5. Do not create new issues by solving current issues. 6. Ensure that any policy amendment is not confused with the City's previous wetland protection ordinance (buffer). In other words, Staff would not suggest including a vegetative buffer requirement, but would support discussions on principal structure setbacks while still allowing for vegetative management up to delineated boundaries. It is noted that it is unlikely that a single ordinance amendment will eliminate all requests for encroachments to wetlands, floodplains, and easements; however, a simple policy adjustment may significantly reduce the number of special requests to the City. There is still likely to be certain circumstances that are so unique, that the City will need to apply available tools to review, such as encroachment agreements or 'no loss exemptions' (through the LRRWMO). Alternatives http://156.142.212.178:8080/frs/publish/print_ ag_memo.cfm?seq=5511 &rev_num=0&mo... 8/12/2015