Discuss Potential Policy to Address Buildable Area on Parcels with Floodplains and Wetlands

The purpose of this case is to consider developing a policy to address recent concerns about the amount of remaining buildable area on a lot after construction of a home. Primarily, the intent is to protect eventual property owners after the initial construction of a home to ensure adequate buildable area to create what an ordinary citizen would consider a back yard.

Over the past several years, the City has received feedback from residents concerning the remaining available buildable area on certain parcels once wetlands and floodplain restrictions are factored into the equation. This concern typically arises as part of the review of a Building Permit application for decks (or other typical homeowner additions) in which wetlands, stormwater ponds, or other infrastructure reduces the net (remaining) buildable area. The outcome usually involves approval from the City of an Encroachment Agreement and potentially approval by the Lower Rum River Watershed Management Organization (WMO) of a No Loss Exemption (wetland encroachment).  Both actions consume City resources and have a cost to the property owner, both financially and in terms of time.
 
City Staff recently reviewed this topic with the City Council (that case is attached for reference). The outcome of that discussion was for Staff to work with the EPB and the Planning Commission to develop potential ideas/solutions to help eliminate, or at least reduce, these types of conflicts from occurring in the future.  As part of this discussion, the following goals should be considered:

1. Minimize common conflicts for future property owner after initial construction of principal structure.
2. Ensure sufficient area for rear decks (and possibly other common homeowner improvements).
3. Ensure sufficient area for back yard (as interpreted by the 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 issue(s).
6. Ensure that any policy amendment is not confused City's previous wetland protection ordinance (aka wetland buffer).  In other words, the focus of this policy discussion should be on minimum buildable area requirements. principal structure setbacks, or other ideas, rather than on water quality measures (buffers).

It is worth noting that at least part of the reason for the increase in these requests and concerns is a result of a declining inventory of vacant lots with the more challenging and/or less desirable lots now being built out.

Staff has identified at least two (2) possible options that could be considered:

1. Minimum buildable area requirement; or
2. Minimum principal structure setback from wetlands, floodplains, and storm sewer pipes.

City Code presently specifies minimum lot sizes for each zoning district.  In residential areas, the minimum required lot size is 10,800 square feet for lots within the R-1 Residential (MUSA) District and 2.5 acres for lots within the R-1 Residential (Rural Developing) District.  However, especially within the MUSA district, there are a number of examples of lots that are 3/4 to 1 acre in size but have greatly restricted buildable area due to wetlands, flooplains, or stormwater infrastructure, or some combination of these. Also, since the shape of lots can vary greatly, 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).

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.