Laserfiche WebLink
Uses. Should the school district be in its own land use zone, to better address long term <br />School district/ Institutional <br />30 <br />2016 <br />improvements and permitting. Currently, the schools are zoned residential (2 acre), and many of <br />3 <br />2 <br />8 <br />5 <br />zoning <br />the regulations applied to the residential are not applicable to the school district. <br />47 <br />Vacation Rentals <br />2015 <br />Should short term rentals be regulated by the City? <br />1 <br />1 <br />2 <br />7 <br />4 <br />4 <br />Tree/ Landscaping. There are no landscaping requirements except for the 1-1, B-2 and RPUD zoning <br />22 <br />Landscaping <br />2015 <br />districts. There should be landscaping requirements for B-4, B-6 and the other commercial zoning <br />6 <br />6 <br />6 <br />1 <br />districts, especially as redevelopment occurs. <br />27 <br />Policy RE Planning Commission <br />2016 <br />Policy. Prepare and codify bylaws governing the planning commission. <br />1 <br />3 <br />6 <br />4 <br />1 <br />42 <br />Subdivision: Special lot <br />2014 <br />Special lot combos should be clarified to exclude non -riparian lots in calculation of average lakeshore <br />2 <br />2 <br />6 <br />4 <br />combinations <br />setbacks. Drafted, need to schedule. <br />52 <br />VARIANCE <br />1 <br />1 <br />1 <br />6 <br />3 <br />44 <br />Transient Merchant <br />2016 <br />Review pop up sales, food trucks, kids sales exceptions? <br />1 <br />3 <br />5 <br />4 <br />Tree/ Landscaping. Tree <br />45 <br />2016 <br />Establish policy to review and approve/ deny tree removal in right of way <br />2 <br />1 <br />5 <br />3 <br />Replacement requirements <br />Comm'I/Residential Kennel <br />The approval and licensing requirements of kennels should be developed, wherever they are <br />5 <br />DeI/f's (78-13ia 6e <br />Pre 2013 <br />1 <br />1 <br />5 <br />2 <br />161/183/184) <br />permitted, while removing any inconsistencies. <br />The City should consider changes to ordinance standards and public street light policies which <br />9 <br />Dark Skies Standards <br />2015 <br />reduce ambient light emissions to reduce the impact of light pollution to the night sky in our rural <br />1 <br />1 <br />5 <br />2 <br />1 <br />residential lake culture setting. <br />Should the regulations for fencing and fence walls be reviewed? Further, should permits be <br />13 <br />Fencing/ landscape walls <br />2016 <br />4 <br />4 <br />4 <br />required for fences and landscape walls. Currently, permits are not required. <br />Orono code language should be clarified to be consistent with state shore land standards with <br />32 <br />Shore land lots of record <br />2014 <br />regard to minimum lot size and width vs. underlying zoning. Has been amended three times (Ord. <br />4 <br />4 <br />4 <br />92, 95, and 108) <br />Accessory uses. Granny flats <br />We should review accessory dwelling units and how they apply to granny flats and similar housing <br />2 <br />2015 <br />1 <br />2 <br />4 <br />3 <br />and additional <br />arrangements. <br />15 <br />Hardcover. Lot of Record <br />2016 <br />Review hardcover tier to ensure they are appropriate. <br />3 <br />3 <br />3 <br />82-281 establishes the maximum length of a cul de sac at 1,000 feet. Recent subdivisions have exceeded this <br />39 <br />Subdivision: Cul-de-sac length <br />2015 <br />length. If the Council is comfortable with a longer maximum, the ordinance should be changed to reflect this <br />3 <br />3 <br />3 <br />distance. <br />Code allows certain accessory structures (pools) within a certain size to be built in front of the <br />Accessory Structures. Accessory <br />principal building, outside of the required yard. Historically, staff has not permitted any structure. <br />1 <br />2015 <br />1 <br />1 <br />3 <br />2 <br />structures and pools <br />Further, 78-1436 allows for a 15 side yard setback for accessory structures between 750 and 1000 <br />sq. ft. Setbacks for accessory structures should be reviewed. <br />Many roads approaching 30-40 years in age and increasing pressure is expected toward the city to <br />28 <br />Policy: Private roads standards <br />Pre 2013 <br />take them over and fix them up — A policy should be developed to respond to these requests. <br />1 <br />1 <br />3 <br />2 <br />3 <br />Roseville or Richfield was recently (11/15) profiled in the paper as an example of a process. <br />Subdivision: RPUD process <br />PUD, RPUD & PRD contain overlaps in the code and are confusing; A easier to understand code may <br />41 <br />Pre 2013 <br />1 <br />1 <br />3 <br />2 <br />ordinance revisions <br />encourage more of these creative types of development. <br />53 <br />SETBACK REVIEW <br />1 <br />1 <br />3 <br />2 <br />CUP modification procedures & <br />Need to add provisions which prescribe the process and what thresholds trigger minor vs. major <br />8 <br />2014 <br />1 <br />3 <br />1 <br />standards created <br />amendments. <br />Additional yard provisions. 78-1406 provision intended to provide relief from strict reading of the <br />50 <br />Yards. Yard setback flexibility <br />2016 <br />2 <br />2 <br />2 <br />setback requirements could be more clearly written. <br />