Laserfiche WebLink
«• * <br />I. <br />3. <br />Proposed Zoning Amendment-Section 10.41 <br />March 10, 1993 <br />Page 2 of 2 <br />clear that our current codes don ’t adequately address changes in the boating industry that have <br />occurred in recent years - bigger boats, more ser\’ices, and a variety of marketing strategies to <br />appeal to a greater cross-section of the public. <br />Some Thoughts on the B-2 Ordinance Draft Attached <br />This draft is a compilation of thoughts and discussion by the Lake Use Committee over <br />the last year with some input by marina operators. However, please treat it as a draft <br />that needs a thorough review, not as a finished product. <br />During your review of the draft, consider whether more definitions are needed. <br />Remember that we must have a permitted or conditional use on a property in order to <br />have an accessory use. Are all the uses listed in the correct categories? For instance, <br />should boat sales be considered as a primary (permitted or conditional) use. or should <br />it be an accessory use? Our Comprehensive Plan (CMP 4-26) suggests that retaU boat <br />sales, which doesn ’t necessarily rely on having a location next to a lake, is not <br />necessarily an appropriate use for the B-2 zone — <br />Take note of the additional pctfotmance standards for some of the uses not previously <br />listed. In general, only the conditional use secuon should incorporate nurumum standards <br />in order to be granted that use. Are the draft standards appropriate? <br />Although the section providing a 4-year installadon and planting period for landscaping <br />has only met with limited success, should similar provisions be added for upgradmg other <br />activities on the site? Should the City attempt to have the mannas d«rease the bstoric <br />degree of hardcover on the site, restore the requued yards to the widths required by co <br />standard, or be given deadlines in which to provide stormwater runoff cootrols such as <br />retention ponds, etc., absent a coning application? Should there be a requuemen for a <br />regular site plan review and require upgrades even if no aonmg appheauons ate b ought <br />forward? Since we would not generally do that in any other <br />is the B-2 zone so umque that continuation of a business operation should dep'od on the <br />required continuous upgrading of the site rather than contmua on o <br />To what degree should our ordinance reference LMCD ^ <br />curtendy referenced 1970 and 1971 LMCD ordinances have been revised many times <br />over the last 20 years. <br />4. <br />5. <br />6. <br />Staff Recommendation <br />our eaisdng B-2 code provides an id^ set of <br />to apply to any new marinas bemg „ oeai more realisticaUy with the <br />pan already developed, we need to structure oriiM -------^ appropriate to addressexisting non-confonnitics, and add regulations that may DC nttcssary <br />thecurrenttypes and levels of activity occurring atourmannas.; ; 4,