Laserfiche WebLink
Proposed Zoning Amendment-Section 10.41 <br />March 10, 1993 <br />Pasc 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 services, 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 />1. <br />2. <br />3. <br />4. <br />5. <br />6. <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 pnxluct. <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 tiic 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 retail boat <br />sales, which doesn't necessarily rely on having a UKation ne.xt to a lake, is not <br />necessarily an appropriate use for the B-2 zone.... <br />Take note of the additional performance standards for some of the uses not previously- <br />listed. In general, only the conditional use section should incorporate minimum standards <br />in order to be granted that use. Are the draft standards appropriate? <br />Although the section providing a 4-year installation and planting period for landscaping <br />has only met with limited success, should similar provisions be added for upgrading other <br />activities on the site? Should the City attempt to have the marinas decrease the historic <br />degree of hardcover on the site, restore the required yards to the widths required by code <br />standard, or be given deadlines in which to provide stormwater runoff controls such as <br />retention ponds, etc., absent a zoning application? Should there be a requirement for a <br />regular site plan review and require upgrades even if no zoning applications are brought: <br />forward? Since we would not generally do that in any other commercial zoning district, <br />is the B-2 zone so unique that continuation of a business operation should depend on the <br />required continuous upgrading of the site rather than continuation ot the status quo? <br />To what degree should our ordinance reference LMCD ordinances? It is likely that the <br />currently referenced 1970 and 1971 LMCD ordinances have been revised many times <br />over the last 20 vears. <br />Staff Recommendation <br />Our existing B-2 code provides an ideal set of standards which would be relatively simple <br />to apply to any new marinas being developed. However, since our B-2 zones are for the most <br />part already developed, we need to structure this ordinance to deal more reaii.stically with the <br />existing non-conformities, and add regulations that may be necvssarv' and appropriate to address <br />the current types and 'evels of activity occurring at our marinas.