2016.03.15 Planning Packet Combined

Home Browse Search

5 Planning Director Gundlach commented at the Council’s direction, staff has worked to draft a proposed ordinance that has the least amount of impact to our residents. There are many deviations from the DNR’s model Shoreland Ordinance in New Brighton’s proposed ordinance. These deviations must be accepted by the DNR. Staff has submitted New Brighton’s draft Shoreland Ordinance to the DNR, who provided comment via email on January 28, 2016. Additionally, the City Attorney has also reviewed the draft ordinance. Planning Director Gundlach indicated the Planning Commission has been reviewing the impacts of the draft ordinance for the past year. Two work sessions have been held on May 19, 2015 and June 16, 2015. Also, an Open House was conducted on September 29, 2015, where 1,518 property owners within the defined shoreland were notified by mail and invited to attend. To date, staff has fielded approximately 75 phone and email inquiries and an additional 100 or so residents attended the September Open House. Also, the City’s website, under the Announcements tab, has contained information regarding the draft Shoreland Ordinance since September 2015. This webpage will be updated periodically as new information becomes available. Staff recommends the Planning Commission hold the public hearing and accept testimony. Staff provided those present with an Ordinance summary. She then requested the Commission take comments from the public and then table action to the April 19, 2016 Planning Commission meeting to allow staff additional time to work with the City Attorney and the DNR on unresolved regulations within the proposed ordinance. Commissioner Danger asked when the hard surface coverage issue would be resolved with the DNR. Planning Director Gundlach anticipated staff would have this matter resolved within the next 60 days. She explained it took a great deal of time to get a response from the DNR on the first draft of the Ordinance and believed they would act in a more timely manner on the hard surface coverage issue. Commissioner Deick commented on the existing structures within the shoreland setback. He questioned if these structures could be replaced if they were to be destroyed. Planning Director Gundlach explained a non- conforming structure would be grandfathered in and if it were destroyed it could be replaced if legally constructed. She provided further comment on the construction requirements under State law for these structures. Hugh Bredenbach, 1400 18th Street NW, was curious how far away from a lake the proposed shoreland ordinance would impact. Planning Director Gundlach indicated properties within 1,000 feet of a lake or 300’ from a creek would have to follow the Shoreland Ordinance. She explained only a change to the hard cover percentage would impact properties not located directly on the lake or creek. She reported the City’s current Ordinance allows 50% hard cover but the DNR may further restrict this for properties located on and adjacent to the City’s lakes and creeks by reducing the percentage to 25%. She provided further comment on how the City defined the shore impact zone. Judy Micala, 2080 Long Lake Road, supported the City have a Shoreland Ordinance in place to protect the City’s water. She discussed the water restoration that has taken place along her shoreline. She questioned if projects like this could occur in the future. Planning Director Gundlach explained that if Ms. Micala received a permit from the Rice Creek Watershed to complete this work, nothing would change and those type of projects could continue. Ms. Micala inquired if access to the lakes and creeks would change. She explained she had a boatshed on the creek and asked if this would continue to be allowed. Planning Director Gundlach reported no new structures would be allowed to be constructed within 50 feet of the lakes and Rice Creek, except Rush Lake, which was 150 feet setback. She commented that all existing structures could remain as is. Ms. Micala believed the 50 foot setback was overly restrictive and could lead to lakeshore property owners building boat sheds or saunas in their front yards. She then questioned if she would be allowed to replace her driveway with hardcover. Planning Director Gundlach advised a driveway could not be expanded if it exists