11-09-2015 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

FILE # 15-3784 21 September 2015 Page 2 of 2 only, but were discarded because existing lights that shine on neighboring property would be considered legal non-conforming, and allowed to continue in perpetuity. Staff was cautious about over regulating lights, recognizing that lights are very important features, directly linked to safety and security. Unfortunately, it is also recognized that lighting can annoy neighbors. Living walls. Concern: The City of Orono has placed great importance on the view of the lake from homes on shore properties, initiating the Average Lake Shore setback for structures in late 1974. No new structures may be placed within the required lake yard (75 feet for Lake Minnetonka) and any expansion of existing structures requires a variance, which are scrutinized carefully. Other than removals, the code is silent on landscaping in these same areas, though they can have the same negative impact. Solution: The proposed ordinance defines a living wall and establishes the same as a nuisance when placed within the required lake yard. A living wall must be evergreen plants planted. Evergreen plants include pine, arborvitae, and spruce. Other plants (lilac, dogwoods, etc.) may provide the same screening characteristics part of the year, are purposefully not included, as these varieties are not likely to be chosen for screening only part of the year. Trees placed by nature, regardless of type and location, are not a living wall, and non-evergreen trees planted are not a living wall. This ordinance only identifies living walls in the required lake yard. Living walls (or landscaping meeting that definition) are frequently used for screening throughout the city. Options considered: The regulation of landscaping in residential areas is a slippery slope. The cost of resources necessary to permit, review, and enforce landscaping requirements in residential areas are greater than the benefits offered. Most cities do not regulate landscaping in residential areas, so the education time and effort requirements would be extraordinary. Early drafts of the ordinance had living walls in the lake shore regulations, but were discarded for the same reasons lighting was, living walls already planted would be grandfathered and allowed to continue, to be maintained and replaced, in perpetuity. Issues for Consideration 1. Does the Planning Commission feel that the problems identified by the report require a regulatory solution? 2. Does the Planning Commission feel that the solution proposed solves the problem in an effective manner? 3. Are there any other issues or concerns with this proposed ordinance?