Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-12-2019 Council Work Session PacketOrono City Council Work Session Monday, August 12, 2019 Council Chambers 6:00 p.m. AGENDA 1. Accessory Buildings (size/ acreage ratio) 2. Average Lake Shore 3. Prioritization General of Amendments Annual: • Budget: Part of June, All of July, August and October. • City Administrator & Police Chief Update (3 times per year for 15 minutes) Previous Work Session Topics July 22, 2019 • Budget • Performance Review — Update • Communication Discussion • Docks as Principal Uses • Accessory Buildings (Size/Acreage Ratio) July 8, 2019 • Esinger Flats TIF Discussio • Marina Licensing June 24, 2019 • Budget • Eisinger Flats TIF Discussion • Performance Reviews • City Owned Properties CITY OF ORONO MEMORANDUM DATE: August 12, 2019 TO: Mayor Walsh, City Council members Dustin Rief, City Administrator FROM: Jeremy Barnhart, AICP, Community Development Director RE: Oversized Accessory Building size This item was tabled during the July 22, 2019 workshop, due to a lack of time. At their meeting on June 10, 2019, the City Council questioned the oversize accessory building (OAB) to lot size ratios codified in section 78-1434 when reviewing a variance request for what would have allowed an OAB to be larger than permitted by code. The current ratio appears to have been introduced to the city code in June of 2013 (Ord 106 Yd series). In December of 2018 an amendment was approved that added ratios for lots greater than 9 acres (Ord 222 Yd series). Exhibit A shows the current table and applies a ratio of building size to lot area for illustrative purposes. As lots get larger, the percentage of allowable accessory building coverage drops. Also included in the green column is the square footage if a straight percentage (5%) was applied to the maximum lot area, for discussion purposes. *Note that for lots 2.00 acres or less, the structural coverage limit of 15% applies, and for lots within the Shoreland Overlay district, limits to impervious surface apply, based on that lot's proximity to the lake. Attached as Exhibit B is a comparison of accessory building regulations of area communities. Most of the communities are lake communities with predominantly smaller lots, so the city of Medinas experience may be most helpful. The limits established by code were deemed to be the maximum acceptable to the City Council at that time. The Council may change these ratios at any time. The Council should understand that an attempt to set a limit to eliminate the need for a variance will not. The Council should establish its limit based on what they feel is acceptable in residential zoning districts. The setbacks for oversized accessory buildings (larger than 1,000 sq ft) generally follow the setbacks for the principal structure. Any change to the zoning ordinance will require review by the planning commission and a public hearing. Exhibits Exhibit A Ratio Worksheet Exhibit B City comparison Maximum Maximum Allowed Ratios 5% Total of All Individual OAB Lot Area Accessory Footprint Max Max Building footprint Max total to Max total to Resulting Area (Sq ft) individual to Individual to (Sq ft) Min range Max range Sq.Ft. Min range Max range Acres S uare feet 0 1.99 - 86,684 1,000 2,000 1.15% 2.31% 4,334 2 3 87,120 130,680 1,200 2,400 1.38% 0.92% 2.8% 1.84% 6,534 3.01 3.5 131,116 152,460 1,400 2,800 1.07% 0.92% 2.1% 1.84% 7,623 3.51 4 152,896 174,240 1,600 3,200 1.05% 0.92% 2.1% 1.84% 8,712 4.01 4.5 174,676 196,020 1,800 3,600 1.03% 0.92% 2.1% 1.84% 9,801 4.51 5 196,456 217,800 2,000 4,000 1.02% 0.92% 2.0% 1.84% 10,890 5.01 6 218,236 261,360 2,200 4,400 1.01% 0.84% 2.0% 1.68% 13,068 6.01 7 261,796 304,920 2,400 4,800 0.92% 0.79% 1.8% 1.57% 15,246 7.01 8 305,356 348,480 2,600 5,200 0.85% 0.75% 1.7% 1.49% 17,424 8.01 9 348,916 392,040 2,800 5,600 0.80% 0.71% 1.6% 1.43% 19,602 9.01 10 392,476 435,600 3,000 6,000 0.76% 0.69% 1.5% 1.38% 21,780 10.01 11 436,036 479,160 3,200 6,400 0.73% 0.67% 1.5% 1.34% 23,958 11.01 12 479,596 522,720 3,400 6,800 0.71% 0.65% 1.4% 1.30% 26,136 12.01 13 523,156 566,280 3,600 7,000 0.69% 0.64% 1.3% 1.24% 28,314 13.01 14 566,716 609,840 3,800 8,000 0.67% 0.62% 1.4% 1.31% 30,492 14.01 610,276 - 4,000 8,000 0.66% 1.3% Mound Minnetonka Beach Wayzata Excelsior Medina Area Community Comparison 129-194 Accessory buildings. Accessory max 3000 or 15%, which ever is less. No single one large than 1,200 sq. ft. None 917.03 - Size. Except in the case of single family detached dwellings, accessory buildings shall not exceed 30 percent of the gross floor area of the principal buildings. In those cases where the standards are exceeded, a planned unit development conditional use permit shall be required. 952.06 lot coverage is 15%, Impervious 25% 11-1 . All garages and accessory buildings shall not exceed 800 sq. ft. Single garage not exceed 768 sq. ft. on a lot 12,0000 or greater, 624 sa. ft. if lot less than 12000 sq. ft. Subd. 3. In residential districts, accessory buildings shall not be attached to, or erected, altered, or mowed within 10 feel of the principal building. Accessory buildings in residential districts shall be governed by the following regulations; Lot Sire Bldg. Si.cef leo. Permitted 10,000 sq. ft. or less 1,000 sq. ft. one 10,001 sq. ft. to 20,000 sq. ft. 1,200 sq. ft. one 20,001 sq. ft. to 43,560 sq. ft. 1,500 sq. ft. one more than one and up to three acres 2,000 sq. ft. one more than three and up to five acres 4,000 sq. ft. two more than 5 acres 5,000 sq. ft. two * Building size shall be calculated by determining the footprint of the building. Subd. 4. On residential properties more than five acres in area., the city council may grant a conditional use permit to allow accessory buildings which exceed an aggregate of 5,(M square feet in size or two in number. Conditional use permits shall be reviewed in accordance with the requirements of sections 825.39, et seq. of'the city code and shall be subject to the additional accessory building standards set forth in section 826.98, subdivision 2 (o) of the city code. CITY OF ORONO MEMORANDUM DATE: August 12, 2019 TO: Mayor Walsh, City Council members Dustin Rief, City Administrator FROM: Jeremy Barnhart, AICP, Community Development Director RE: Average Lake Shore Setback discussion Recognizing the varied lot configurations of lake shore property, the City Council directed staff to review Average Lake Shore setback regulations, in part to ensure that these configurations are adequately addressed in the City Code, and in part to ensure that the regulations actually protected lake views. The Planning Commission discussed this issue at their meeting on July 15th. Minutes from that meeting are attached. Staff seeks confirmation of goals, and with those, will prepare a draft ordinance for consideration: Preservation of Lake views ■ Is it the city's intention to preserve a 180 degree viewshed, free of structures? Or reasonable views of the lake, given inherent development densities? Accommodates various unique circumstances ■ Include meandering, concave, convex shorelines, peninsulas. ■ Extreme neighboring setbacks (Farview Lane, others). Is it the City's intent to preserve views for homes that are setback more than 200 feet from the lake? Should there be a maximum ALS? ■ Unique orientation to the lake (Forest Arms Lane). Is it the City's intent to preserve views where the homes are orientated over another's' property? ■ Lots with double lake frontage Clarity. Any resulting regulation should be understandable forthe layperson. This often precludes numerous exceptions. Any change to the zoning ordinance will require review by the planning commission and a public hearing. Exhibits Exhibit A Area Community Comparison Exhibit B Lot Samples Exhibit C Pence Lane example Exhibit D PC Minutes Exhibit E PC Staff report Lake view protection in neighboring communities Excelsior 17-6 (2) Ordinary high water level setbacks. The complete shoreland provisions are found as article 60 of this Appendix E. a. No principal structure or building addition other than an existing water oriented accessory structure as specified above shall be located closer to the ordinary high water level than the greater of: 1. Fifty feet, or 2. Five feet on either side of a line which is drawn between the two closest riparian principal structures on either side of a proposed building site. Mound None Wayzata 991.09.D No principal structure or building addition other than a water oriented accessory structure as specified above shall be located closer to the ordinary high water mark than the greater of: a) Seventy-five feet; b) A line which is drawn between the two closest riparian principal structures on either side of a proposed building site; c) The average setback of the two closest riparial principal structures on either side of a proposed building site; or d) The average setback line shall be measured parallel to the ordinary high water level. In all circumstances, the setback shall be established by measuring the distance from the ordinary high water level to that part of the said principal structure that is closest to the lake. Victoria 100-150 setback, based on lake classification Tonka Bay 1011.03.5.d "For riparian lots, no principal structure or building addition shall be located closer to the ordinary high water mark than the greater of fifty (50) feet, or the average setback of the two adjacent riparian principal structures on either side of a proposed building site. In all circumstances, the setback shall be established by measuring the distance from the ordinary high water level to the part of the said principal structure that is closest to the lake." Minnetonka Beach (F) (d) Specific Design Criteria for Structures in the Shoreland District (i) Average Minimum Lakeshore Setback (AMLS) Principal structures—and accessory structures as may be required by this ordinance—shall be located no closer to the lakeshore than a line derived by the greatest setback required by a combination of the following: 1. A line drawn 75 feet parallel to the lakeshore; 2. If the lot is between two (2) lots that contain principal structures, a straight line connecting points on each side lot line that are setback from the lakeshore a distance equivalent to the principal structures on the directly adjacent lots. 3. If the lot is adjacent to only one (1) lot containing a principal structure, a straight line connecting points on each side lot line that are setback from the lakeshore a distance equivalent to the setback of the lakeward most point of the adjacent principal structure. Hennepin County Property Map Date: 7/11/2019 No results Casco Avenue Black line 75 lake yard Red line ALS for red starred lot Blue line is AVS for blue starred lot Comments: This data (i) is furnished 'AS IS' with no representation as to completeness or accuracy; (ii) is furnished with no warranty of any kind; and (iii) is notsuitable for legal, engineering or surveying purposes. Hennepin County shall not be liable for any damage, injury orloss resulting from this data. COPYRIGHT © HENNEPIN COUNTY 2019 Hennepin County Property Map Date: 7/11/2019 17 Farview Lane Black line 75 lake yard setback Note 450 foot setback This data (i) is furnished 'AS IS' with no representation as to completeness or accuracy; (ii) is furnished with no warranty of any kind; and (iii) is notsuitable for legal, engineering or surveying purposes. Hennepin County shall not be liable for any damage, injury orloss resulting from this data. COPYRIGHT © HENNEPIN COUNTY 2019 Hennepin County Property Map Date: 7/11/2019 No results Forest Arms Lane Black line 75 lake yard Red line ALS for red starred lot Note orientation of houses Comments: This data (i) is furnished 'AS IS' with no representation as to completeness or accuracy; (ii) is furnished with no warranty of any kind; and (iii) is notsuitable for legal, engineering or surveying purposes. Hennepin County shall not be liable for any damage, injury or loss resulting from this data. COPYRIGHT © HENNEPIN COUNTY 2019 Hennepin County Property Map Date: 7/11/2019 No results x I Shadywood Road Black line 75' lake setback Red Line ALS for red starred lot Blue line ALS for blue starred lot Comments: This data (i) is furnished 'AS IS' with no representation as to completeness or accuracy; (ii) is furnished with no warranty of an y kind; an d (iii) is notsuitable for legal, engineering or surveying purposes. Hennepin County shall not be liable for any damage, injury or loss resulting from this data. COPYRIGHT © HENNEPIN COUNTY 2019 2710 Pence Black areas represent portions of neighboring houses that "block" views M I APPLICANT'S POI N T -TO - POINT ALS Sr.rI EXISTING HOJ LAKESHORE #2715 SETBACK PER 5b` j LOT 2 % � I N 88°54'17" W 146.30 2i w O. (F) PROPO ° oN 3 HOUSE . + a �^'� //`v / t I DEC IE (9)s) EXISTING HOUSE #2715 Tim NW CORNER OF RLS NO. 310 !V {J 1 0 1„3+1 0 SHORELINE OF LAKE MINNETONKA LAKE MINNETONKA -- LEGALDESCRIMON; Lot 2, Block 1, PENCE LANE ADDITION 0 30 60 120 • O Denotes found Iron marker • : Denotes set Iron marker . --440-- 40: Denotesexlsfing contour J- Denotes proposed elevation SCALE IN FEET This survey Intends to show the boundaries of the above described property, a proposed house, a proposed and existing drive, and a pool. It does not purport to show any other encroachments or Improvements. REVISIONSREMARKS ESIGNE Ihereby certlfyMatNlsplan, speclfiwtion,or islort was prepared by me or under my direct supervision 10-7618 GRONBERG ASSOCIATES, INC. DATE BY D and that I am a duly Licensed Land Surveyor under the laws of the State of Minnesota. CIVIL ENGINEERS, LAND SURVEYORS, LAND PLANNERS H 18355 445 N. WILLOW DRIVE LONG LAKE, MN 55356 onTF iY/ is ra' PHONE: 952-473-4141 FAX: 952-473-4435 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, July 15, 2019 6:30 o'clock p.m. 7. LA19-000053 CITY OF ORONO, AVERAGE LAKESHORE SETBACK DISCUSSION, 7:56 P.M. — 8:30 P.M. Barnhart stated this item is intended to be a discussion on the City's average lakeshore setback and will likely be discussed at a work session. The average lakeshore setback was established in 1992 and was intended to protect the views of lakeshore property owners. Typically, the average lakeshore setback is established by the location of the principal structures on the neighboring lakeshore lots but there are some exceptions for lots adjacent to right-of-way or vacant lots. The City recently observed a situation where the average lakeshore setback didn't realistically protect a lakeview as the setback line prescribed by ordinance went through the neighboring principal structures. Another example is an average lakeshore setback where it goes right through the house. It is Staff's belief that the following are the goals of the ordinance: Preservation of lake views. Is it the City's intention to preserve a 180 -degree view shed, free of structures or reasonable views of the lake given inherent development densities? 2. Accommodates various unique circumstances, including meandering, concave/convex shorelines, and peninsulas. Is it the City's intent to preserve views for homes that are set back more than 200 feet from the lake? Should there be a maximum average lakeshore? Is it the City's intent to preserve views where the homes are orientated over another's property? Clarity. Any resulting regulation should be understandable for the average citizen. This often precludes numerous exceptions. To date, no public comments have been received. Planning Staff requests direction on how to proceed. This direction will be provided to the Council and both will be used to develop regulatory solutions for future consideration. McCutcheon asked if the common rule is 75 feet from the lakeshore. Barnhart indicated he looked at Mound and Excelsior and most of those communities have some regulations to preserve views. Mound does not. Victoria uses a 150 -foot setback to preserve the views. The other cities have similar regulations. Chair Ressler opened the public hearing at 8:11 p.m. There were no public comments relating to this application. Chair Ressler closed the public hearing at 8:11 p.m. Barnhart noted Staff did not notice this as a public hearing. Ressler stated he would like the ordinance to be written so it is understandable by the average person. Some of the issues might be mitigated if an average of two or three neighboring properties is taken into consideration to help understand where that line is represented. Ressler stated one example is of a Page 1 of 3 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, July 15, 2019 6:30 o'clock p.m. property on a quasi -peninsula and whether the City should also consider the number of feet to the neighboring structure, so it takes into consideration that shoreline point. Barnhart stated Bohns Point is a peninsula and currently the average lakeshore setback is a straight line, so the setback would be 150 feet. Ressler stated that is kind of what he is getting at and that a straight line does not seem to be fair for that lot, which should be taken into consideration. Libby stated he tends to agree from the standpoint of how they look at the metrics. When there is something that has irregularities, it is not uncommon to take the measured empirical distance from either the center line of the street or curb, measure back a block's worth of properties, and then divide the number of properties within that block. Instead what the City is trying to deal with is a very static line that does not take into account the irregular shoreline. Barnhart noted Staff does use its average measuring tool for some nonconforming properties but not for lakeshore lots. The problem with the average number for most situations is that the line is logical. The view is established by where the structure is. Libby stated as long as that stays the static purpose, there is no way to do it differently. Preserving the lakeshore is important and is similar to the dock alignments, which is very complicated. The LMCD attempts to have something fair and reasonable so the docks line up but the lakeshore is not linear and does not take into account that the lakeshore differs. McCutcheon stated he agrees it is a problem and that perhaps they could look at having some sort of minimum for the neighborhood. Barnhart stated in his view, if the average lakeshore setback is 219 feet, there should be some sort of maximum lakeshore setback since there are probably some situations where the house is 450 feet back. The question then becomes, is it fair to have that lot set the average lakeshore setback for the neighboring house and should it be protected as much as the homes on Casco Point where they are all lined up. Barnhart stated that type of situation should be part of any discussion since that creates some of the issues. While a new ordinance is not going to eliminate all variances, it could help reduce it somewhat. Bollis stated he would be in favor of eliminating it, which should be brought forward for discussion. Gettman commented they also did not discuss vegetation that can obstruct a view. In the application earlier, there were some trees that were blocking the view and the other neighbor was willing to remove those. Having that as part of the discussion would also be helpful. If one property owner puts in a bunch of trees, it ends up defeating the purpose of having these protections. Barnhart noted the Council did look at regulating landscaping in the lake yard in the past and ultimately discarded any changes because they did not want to get into regulating that. The City is trying to protect the lake but they also want to preserve a natural view. Gettman stated enforcement of the ordinance also needs to be looked at. Page 2 of 3 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, July 15, 2019 6:30 o'clock p.m. Barnhart stated enforcement of the ordinance can be discussed at any point. Ressler stated something else to take into consideration is the added cost of surveying the shoreline, which in his view is being utilized in ways it should not be. The City should take into consideration the average lakeshore setbacks of neighboring properties and not just the two adjoining properties. Erickson stated as it regards the 180 -degree view, that is really unrealistic, and the idea of reasonable views has more merit. The City has three different lot sizes on the lake, which makes a difference if someone has a 50 -foot lot or 100 or 200 feet of lakeshore, and is the reason why there should be an average. Erickson stated he could probably support some type of upper limit. As it relates to flag lots, Erickson stated he would like to see something that disregards the flag lots. If it was a new subdivision, flag lots would not be allowed, and if somebody next door wants to build a house, they should not have to drastically compromise their layout to accommodate someone whose house is behind them. One way to deal with that is just to ignore the flag lot and go to the next house and use that as the average. In addition, every house has a front yard and a back yard. As far as views are concerned, not many have a nice view out the front door. Instead, it is the back yard where they have their picture window and easy chair to admire the sunset. That situation would favor the back yard more than the front yard. Erickson stated a good point was raised also about vegetation and that he would not want to regulate vegetation too much beyond what the City does now, which is to regulate tree removal within 75 feet of the lake. Erickson stated he would encourage people to plant a tree since it is a good thing. The City also has similar rules on fences because fencing and tree planting are going to happen. Libby asked whether Staff will draft something and bring it back before the Planning Commission. Barnhart stated his plan is to summarize the comments of the Planning Commission and then have the same sort of discussion with the City Council to gain their input. Ressler commented the City typically is for maintaining vegetation and not removing it, and that he does not want to get into regulating that. The Planning Commission took no formal action on this item. Page 3 of 3 To: Chair Ressler and Planning Commission Members Dustin Rief, City Administrator From: Jeremy Barnhart, Community Development Director Date: July 15, 2019 Subject: #LA19-000053, City of Orono Text Amendment: Average Lake Setback Application Summary: This the first step in a larger discussion regarding Average Lake Shore setback provisions, and whether modifications to the ordinance are appropriate. Staff Recommendation: Planning Department Staff requests direction. Background The Average Lake Shore setback is established in 1992 (Ordinance 1012 d Series) to protect the views of lake shore property owners from encroachment due to expansion and placement of structures on neighboring lots. Typically, the average lake shore setback is established by the location of the principal structures on the neighboring lake shore lots, though there are some exceptions for lots adjacent to right of way or vacant lots. In the 18 months since January 2018, the city has processed 48 variance applications; of these variance applications, 8 included a variance from the average lake shore setback in some form. The regulation may be found in Section 78-1279: (6) Average lakeshore setback. No principal or accessory building shall be located closer to the lakeshore than the average distance from the shoreline of existing residence buildings on adjacent lots; except that this does not apply to patios and other accessory structures less than 42 inches above existing grade, stairways, lifts, landings, lockboxes, flagpoles and pump houses. Further, the average lakeshore setback shall apply only to classified lakes and shall not apply to tributaries. The average lakeshore setback line shall be a straight line connecting the most lakeward protrusions of the residence buildings on the immediately adjacent lakeshore lots. a. In situations where improvement is proposed on a lot adjacent to a vacant lot or right-of-way, the average lake shore setback shall be equivalent to the setback of the most lakeward protrusion of the residence building on the immediately adjacent improved lakeshore lot. The City Council recently observed a situation where the average lake shore setback didn't realistically protect a lakeview, as the setback line prescribed by ordinance went through the neighboring principal structures (Exhibit C). That, coupled with the variance frequency suggests a review of the regulation is appropriate. Average Lake Shore setback was last amendment in 2015, to accommodate lots adjacent to right of way. Analysis This item is not yet scheduled for a public hearing. At this stage, staff seeks confirmation of goals FILE #LA19-000053 July 15, 2019 Page 2 of 2 prior to developing solutions for the public, Planning Commission, and Council consideration. Staff has polled area communities to understand their regulations attached as Exhibit A. Excelsior, Wayzata, Tonka Bay, and Minnetonka Beach have an average lake setback similar to Orono's. Victoria relies on a 100 or 150' setback (based on the lake classification), and Mound does not have any additional regulations. Goals. Staff understands that the following are the goals of the ordinance Preservation of Lake views ■ Is it the city's intention to preserve a 180 degree viewshed, free of structures? Or reasonable views of the lake, given inherent development densities? Accommodates various unique circumstances ■ Include meandering, concave, convex shorelines, peninsulas. ■ Extreme neighboring setbacks (Farview Lane, others). Is it the City's intent to preserve views for homes that are setback more than 200 feet from the lake? Should there be a maximum ALS? ■ Unique orientation to the lake (Forest Arms Lane). Is it the City's intent to preserve views where the homes are orientated over another's' property? ■ Lots with double lake frontage Clarity. Any resulting regulation should be understandable for the layperson. This often precludes numerous exceptions. Examples of lot configurations and the unique circumstances they represent are attached as Exhibit B. Note the setback lines illustrated on the exhibits are estimates only, based on aerial photography. Public Comments To date, no public comments have been received. Issues for Consideration 1. Does the Planning Commission agree with the goals? 2. Does the Commission have additional goals that should be included? Planning Staff Recommendation Planning Staff requests direction. This direction will be provided to the Council, and both will be used to develop regulatory solutions for future consideration. List of Exhibits Exhibit A. Area Community Comparison Exhibit B. Lot samples Exhibit C. Pence Lane example CITY OF ORONO MEMORANDUM DATE: August 12, 2019 TO: Mayor and City Council members Dustin Rief, City Administrator FROM: Jeremy Barnhart, AICP, Community Development Director RE: Prioritization of General Amendments In the past, the City Council and Planning Commission have met to develop priorities regarding amendments to the City Codes. The last such prioritization was in the fall of 2016. The results from that meeting are attached. Before the next meeting, which is anticipated for sometime this fall, Staff has identified several amendments that are necessary to improve government operations, the applicant experience and protect the public health and welfare. These subjects should be reviewed now as they impact day to day activity of city hall staff. They are: Special Event Ordinance. Special events are a common occurrence in Orono, and include large fundraising events, fireworks displays, home tours, road races, etc. These events have the potential to negatively impact neighboring properties if not carefully managed. As these events have evolved, so to does our review process. Staff proposes to draft an ordinance the reviews the trigger events, the review process, and the approval authority. Lastly, the distinction between city special events (the dog park in Lurton event) and others should be reviewed. Staff does not propose or anticipate a limit to the number of parties at a property, as was briefly discussed in February 2017. Subdivision Ordinance. The subdivision ordinance should be reviewed. Issues identified include the subdivisions exception process (boundary line adjustments) appear to be used to circumvent the public review process, certain activities, including the creation of an easement, are considered `subdivisions' when they are not, and the process should be reviewed for conformance with state statutes. Land Uses. In light of the recent approval of the Comprehensive Plan, a review of the permitted, conditional, and accessory uses in all districts should be completed. Ideally, these should be reviewed periodically, but Staff is unaware of the last comprehensive review. Recent changes have occurred as requested by a property owner, in an ad hoc fashion. These are identified as more pressing issues. Staff desires authorization to begin the review process on these topics. City Codes and Ordinances Review Ranking updated 8-8-19 2017 Summary Age Issues/Discussion Total Points Total votes rank 1 Special Events 2016 Special Events. Review the standards for special events, specifically the number of times 27 9 3 Structural Coverage 2016 Structural Coverage. Review structural coverage calculations, what is included, what isn't 21 8 2 Land uses 2016 Uses. Review uses permissible and conditional in the Business districts, including care facilities. 21 8 The entire sign ordinance should be reviewed and revised to address content neutral signage and to 4 Sign Ordinance Pre 2013 reflect market demands and city goals. Issues specific to special events, residential entrances, 19 7 temporary, election should be reviewed. There are several areas with lots substantially below (1/2 acre or less) the minimum 2 acre lot Small lots in older zoning requirements; Either a new zoning district or a new district classification, i.e.: Crystal Bay, 5 Pre 2013 15 6 neighborhoods Mtka Bluffs, Stubbs Bay Ne. Previous Councils suggested this to be reviewed as part of the Comprehensive Plan. Wetlands. The City's wetland setback requirements are greater than area communities and the 6 Wetland Setbacks 2015 watershed district. Perhaps the benefits are no longer valid. Further, there appears to be a conflict 15 5 between the septic code and the wetland setback. 7 Escrow 2016 Review the requirements for escrow deposits and agreements. 14 6 Review the Septic code, compare with State/ County requirements. Determine if the differences are worth the added layer of review and permitting. Create an option whereby a landowner can obtain approval for extending the every 3 year pumping requirement on a year -by -year basis where 8 Septic Code Pre 2014 12 6 documentation is provided and a management plan agreement is entered into requiring verification that septic tanks are not needing to be pumped yet, especially in the case of Big Island where the transportation cost is exceedingly high. The statute allows for certain subdivisions to be reviewed differently, skipping a planning commission 10 Lot splits 2015 process. could be reviewed and do not need to be, adding time, expense, and roadblocks unnecessarily. 12 5 Changes could save staff and applicant time. 9 Hardcover 2016 Review hard cover exclusions including roads and trails for public's benefit. 12 5 Comp Plan text/map The Comp plan notes certain density ranges. The future Comprehensive Plan should be clear as to 11 amendments re: densities in Pre 2013 12 4 the goal of certain districts in terms of density and development patterns. certain districts Site Plan. Should all site plans be reviewed as part of a public hearing? Adds unnecessary time and 12 Site Plan review 2016 10 4 expense to uses that are permitted. 13 Sketch Plan 2016 Review the procedure for sketch plans. Should these include public hearings? 10 4 There is concern that certain large lakeshore estate properties might be acquired by other agencies Estate transformation to event 14 Pre 2013 to use for high-intensity park -related or event -center uses incompatible with our residential zoning 9 5 center and/or competing with existing facilities. Sex Offender Review location restrictions to Level III sex offender residences 17-3897; Tabled indefinitely 17-3896; Approved 3/13/17 18-000059, Approved 17-3925; Approved 6-26-17 17-3923; Approved 5-22-17 17-3921; Approved 4-10-17 18-000064, Approved 17-3923; Approved 4-10-17 17-3920; Approved 4-10-17 17-3891; Approved 1-9-17 17-3893; approved 17-3894; Approved 3-22-17 17-3920; Approved 4-10-17 17-3924, Approved 17-3926, Approved 18-41; Approved 18-24; Approved 18-42; Approved 17-3985; Approved Approved June, 2017 Reintroduced 10-9-17 as 17-3984, Approved Fire Permitting Reviewed Recreational Fire regulations Retaining wall setbacks Setback requiremnets for retaining walls and small landscaping improvements Survey requirements Review which projects require a survey CUP Repeal Amended the process to repeal CUP's Government Signs Amended regulations related to Government signs Gate Opacity Amended the regulations RE Gate opacity Definitions Adjusted some definitions Public Hearings Increased the notification distance to 500 ft for most public hearings PWC on LL Reviewed personal watercraft regs on long lake 15 Non -conformity issues 2016 Ordinance allows the replacement of non -conformities taken in an Act of God, replace in 12 months. 8 6 Voluntarily, replace in 6 months. These should be consistent. The definition of average lakeshore as it applies to fences is different than as it applies to buildings. Average Lakeshore: Fences 2015 8 5 Would consistency improve clarity? School district/ Institutional Uses. Should the school district be in its own land use zone, to better address long term 2016 improvements and permitting. Currently, the schools are zoned residential (2 acre), and many of 8 5 zoning the regulations applied to the residential are not applicable to the school district. Vacation Rentals 2015 Should short term rentals be regulated by the City? 7 4 Tree/ Landscaping. There are no landscaping requirements except for the 1-1, B-2 and RPUD zoning Landscaping 2015 districts. There should be landscaping requirements for B-4, B-6 and the other commercial zoning 6 6 districts, especially as redevelopment occurs. Policy RE Planning Commission 2016 Policy. Prepare and codify bylaws governing the planning commission. 6 4 Subdivision: Special lot 2014 Special lot combos should be clarified to exclude non -riparian lots in calculation of average lakeshore 6 4 combinations setbacks. Drafted, need to schedule. VARIANCE 6 3 Transient Merchant 2016 Review pop up sales, food trucks, kids sales exceptions? 5 4 Tree/ Landscaping. Tree 2016 Establish policy to review and approve/ deny tree removal in right of way 5 3 Replacement requirements Comm'I/Residential Kennel Def's The approval and licensing requirements of kennels should be developed, wherever they are (78-1376, 62-161/183/184) Pre 2013 permitted, while removing any inconsistencies. 5 2 17-3893; approved 17-3894; Approved 3-22-17 17-3920; Approved 4-10-17 17-3924, Approved 17-3926, Approved 18-41; Approved 18-24; Approved 18-42; Approved 17-3985; Approved Approved June, 2017 Reintroduced 10-9-17 as 17-3984, Approved 17-3911; Approved April, 2017 17-3892; Approved 1/23/17 17-3893; Approved 1/23/17 The City should consider changes to ordinance standards and public street light policies which Dark Skies Standards 2015 5 2 reduce ambient light emissions to reduce the impact of light pollution to the night sky in our rural Should the regulations for fencing and fence walls be reviewed? Further, should permits be Fencing/ landscape walls 2016 4 4 required for fences and landscape walls. Currently, permits are not required. Orono code language should be clarified to be consistent with state shore land standards with Shore land lots of record 2014 regard to minimum lot size and width vs. underlying zoning. Has been amended three times (Ord. 4 4 92, 95, and 108) Accessory uses. Granny flats We should review accessory dwelling units and how they apply to granny flats and similar housing 2015 4 3 and additional arrangements. Hardcover. Lot of Record 2016 Review hardcover tier to ensure they are appropriate. 3 3 82-281 establishes the maximum length of a cul de sac at 1,000 feet. Recent subdivisions have exceeded this Subdivision: Cul-de-sac length 2015 length. If the Council is comfortable with a longer maximum, the ordinance should be changed to reflect this 3 3 distance. Code allows certain accessory structures(pools) within a certain size to be built in front of the Accessory Structures. Accessory principal building, outside of the required yard. Historically, staff has not permitted any structure. 2015 3 2 structures and pools Further, 78-1436 allows for a 15 side yard setback for accessory structures between 750 and 1000 sq. ft. Setbacks for accessory structures should be reviewed. Peluey: Private r a.J5; Stand;4r.J'; PFe 2013 - 2 Subdivision: RPUD process PUD, RPUD & PRD contain overlaps in the code and are confusing; A easier to understand code may Pre 2013 3 2 ordinance revisions encourage more of these creative types of development. CUP modification procedures & Need to add provisions which prescribe the process and what thresholds trigger minor vs. major 2014 3 1 standards created amendments. Additional yard provisions. 78-1406 provision intended to provide relief from strict reading of the Yards. Yard setback flexibility 2016 2 2 setback requirements could be more clearly written. Interim Use Permits (IUP) The city should explore Interim use permits as tool to allow the use of certain property with a time 2014 2 1 standards created limit. Nuisances (dog barking, long grass, debris, light and glare, smells) could be better defined and Nuisances 2015 2 1 written from an enforcement strategic viewpoint. SWMP - zoning code revisions to Ordinances codifying the Surface Water Management Plan standards must be adopted to fully Pre 2013 2 1 formalize implementation implement the plan. The city should develop a clear set of objective and effective standards for permitting tree removals Trees/ Landscaping Tree Pre 2013 in the following situations: large and small lots, plats, conservation subdivisions, and shore land 2 1 Preservation Ordinance areas. Uses. Gardens are a permitted principal use in some zoning districts. In these districts, a property Permitted uses: gardens 2016 1 1 owner may add a dock to a lot with a garden, satisfying the ordinance. Is this the intent? RS Dist. - Bldg. & foundation Pre 2013 The RS District's (Big Island) standards for construction and setback should be reviewed. 1 1 standards Housekeeping. House Numbers 2016 Building Code requires 4" min height. 0 0 Housekeeping. Recreation Fires 2016 Remove permit requirement for recreation fire. 0 0 17-3911; Approved April, 2017 17-3892; Approved 1/23/17 17-3893; Approved 1/23/17 Practice change Housekeeping. Street Signs 2016 Street signs are due at building permit, not CO. Public safety issue included in the Building Code. 0 0 Currently, the city charges all applicants an application fee. Should taxing authorities pay fees for Application fees. Tax authorities 2016 0 0 the review ofprojects? In essence we are charging our taxpayers for the review of projects that Conservation Design 2014 The Conservation design requirements and process should be reviewed to ensure consistency with Councils 0 0 goals. Drones • o,-�3 � may be .Jimuptiye t ., .,hh r� 0 8 HelipeFts 2(44 The ordinance should include provisions for the landing of helicepters and airplanes on lakes and on large private properties. Q G There is an opportunity to improve the process of dealing with slope failures before they occur and Slope Failure and Stabilization pre 2013 in emergency situations; standards, review process, collaboration with MCWD, etc. would benefit 0 0 Ordinance or Policy residents. Subdivision: Outlots 2016 Review the provision that an outlot is not a buildable lot. 0 0 Vehicles. Maximum number of Consider limitations on the number of vehicles that can be stored outdoors on single family lots to 2014 I 0 0 vehicles stored outdoors avoid excessive clutter in residential properties Practice change