Laserfiche WebLink
■4 Uiki^^'r'.r /,Zoning Administrator <br />tructurea <br />b December Meeting. <br />d that there should <br />rea of all non-LR <br />structures; and B> <br />d that there should <br />Idlngs and the size <br />on of a formula or <br />percent of property <br />ted such that larger <br />age of coverage than <br />a 1/2 acre lot Is <br />w that every 20 acre <br />rage, but something <br />greed that accessory <br />Lly tied permanently <br />id that any future <br />! two; and B) must <br />intage. <br />m <br />;v'v; ^CV j. ; <br />vr.^V-' V. :V ' <br />Nf: <br />ll mmim <br /><K <br />m <br />yy:v;v7 <br />MKSSp y.y ■:■.... v-;i. . ... -. \. . A <br />yjp^yy:'-' <br />• ■■ " •"- ■ • v'T; <br />mmm-y:S$r. ‘ ■ \ <br />;y/-'-yy:y;y ! <br />' ■■■■;. : ij <br />yA-y'/Z'/'V:-^::y. | <br />'y-Aiy-P <br />::M•••‘V ^X.:y‘-flyy'"'ry: ■M-:y";v^yy yy:' <br />• •= '• ,' ■■.••.•• ■ ■ '■• '.' .'• • •• <br />(S. Regarding the height issue - Planning Comsiission generally agreed that the definitions of fence height, building height and the definition of enclosure must all be agreed upon as they relate to accessory structures. Planning Cosuaissioner Bellows noted that in Orono, where basements seem to be often problematic due to influent <br />groundwater flows, perhaps we should allow greater prisiary <br />structure height flexibi!ity based on factors such as lot <br />size and building location in relation to lot lines, vic« <br />blockages, sun light blockages, topography and screening. <br />B. I have reviewed the comments of the Planning Commission, and <br />have obtained copies of accessory structure ordinances from the <br />cities of Champlin, Coon Rapids, and Woodbury, all of which have <br />somewhat similar development characteristics to Orono. Copies of <br />the pertinent sections of those ordinances are attached for your <br />reference. <br />Based on further review of the situation, I have completely <br />revised the proposed amendment to more closely coincide with the <br />Planning Commission's apparent goals, using bits and pieces of <br />our existing ordinance and other city's ordinances. I’hese will <br />be dealt with issue^-by- issue, and summarized in the table <br />attached as Exhibit A. <br />issos I. Lot Coverage. <br />Planning Comnission suggested that there should be a maximum <br />lot coverage ir all zones that are not currently subject to the <br />lakeshore residential hardcover standards. Other cities have <br />similar ordinances, which in discussions wit.h their staff people, <br />they enforce only vhen "it seems to be a problem*. Also, other <br />cities appear to have two standards in effect: a) basing their <br />percentage only on the coverage with buiIdings, not including <br />driveways, sidewalks, patios, etc.; and b) based on the total <br />percentage of a lot covered with impervious surfaces, similar to <br />our hardcover ordinance. <br />»s: yy <br />r ^i- • ■■ \ i mm. <br />yya-.- <br />V": y - yy . <br />'mm- ■ <br />y y.Xyr--:-VV./' y <br />IF.vyvy/.*’xy'y'-v:-..v y <br />y-' yi-.y •/■:•• v=-.;:..• * <br />•y'-^ yyy:fc;yX:yx.y-.y;.;--y ■^v'yvMyyX' <br />•.Y. ■ -y; : <br />: •• •• • yy - Z' .. <br />yy/ /.•••• vx-' • v-v <br />: •• •■ ' . . ■ . » - . .• •" . <br />i’.!' ■ ;• •■ =. ■ ■ <br />■\y‘- y- y-jm.i- <br />; •.■•/ .^-y <br />KS <br />y/y^y <br />'■■■ •• ■ • -V • ■ •■ <br />.. . : ‘ • . <br />■ ••••: : V- <br />r':' -.yy- <br />■•'•y y . <br />mm,mm <br />/'y • • ■■■ • ■'' ■ f • \ . ••; . • •■■ <br />fei. <br />X-v ■ ♦ <br />m-ymmmi*