Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-18-1993 Public Hearing-Flag Lot Issue Minutes► PUBLIC HEARING ON FLAG LOT ISSUES August 18, 1993 The Planning Commission of the City of Orono held a public hearing to discuss Flag Lot Issues pursuant »o notice at 7:00 p.m., Wednesday, August 18, 1993 at the Orono Council Chambers. Chairman Charles Schroeder and Planning Commission members Candy Rowlette, Sandy Smith and Charles Nolan were pre.sent. Zoning Administrator Jeanne Mabusth, Assistant Planning & Zoning Administrator Michael Gaffron, and Recorder Lin Vee were present representing staff. Chairman Schroeder called the meeting to order explaining that the meeting was to discuss the issue of flag lots in general terms and asked Gaffron to provide some general information and history about flag lots in Orono. Gaffron defined flag lots fro.n resource books, "Flag lots are permitted in rural and developing municipalities to permit development of back land areas while still maintaining their rural character." .A flag lot could be defined as typically separated from a public or private road by another lot which gains access to the public or private road via a narrow corridor that is typically 10’-50 ’ in width. "The usual requirements for a flag lot are as follows: minimum lot area at least twice the area in the zone where located exclusive of the right-of-way connecting the lot with the public road; minimum front, side and rear yard requirements to be met on the portion excluding the right-of-way; minimum of 20 ’ and maximum of 50 ’ for right-of-way; not more than 1 flag lot for each right-of-way; rights-of-way should be a minimum distance apart of at least the minimum lot width in the particular zone." This definition does not necessarily relate to anything the City has done or is presently doing. Prior to our Shoreland Ordii'.tsi..c, there were a couple methods to look at subdivision of a narrow, long piece of property that was either on or off the lake and someone wanted to create a back and front lot. In a lakeshore situation, one method is to create a flag lot that abuts the lake and a back lot that abuts the street without lakeshore access. The opposite situation would never be allowed becau.se the lake lot would need to have a shoreline width equal to the requirement for the district. The Code has .said that lot width is measured at the front or street setback line from the side lot line. Gaffron illustrated these situations. Prior to the recent Shoreland Ordinance, the lot width for a lakeshore lot would be measured at the 75’ setback and the street setback and a flag lot would require a variance. With the Shoreland Ordinance, the width is measured at the shoreline and at the 75’ setback but at no other locations, making a flag lot a possibility. To avoid variances in the past, a private easement was granted to access the street. Another way was to create an outlot, typically a private driveway outlot, owned by the person who u.ses it. This allows the back lot to meet the width standard without a variance. The outlot area is not considered with the dedicated area for eitlier the back or front lot. PUBLIC HEARING ON FLAG LOT ISSUES August 18, 1993 With the new Shoreland Ordinance. Hac lots that were never allowed because of a width variance issue would now be allowed. There is concern by the Cfiuncil that they didn’t fully understand what was happening with this issue when the Shoreland Ordinance was adopted. . Before passing the Ordinance, Council looked at cul-de-sac lots on the lake and found them to usually require variances. They questioned if it was fair to require lakeshore lots to meet the setback width at the shoreline, 75 ’ back, at the street setback and at the road. The Shoreland Ordinance was adopted in February of 1992. Gaffron stated that flag lots and cul-de-sacs could be detlned differently. He provided several examples of situations that currently exist in Orono (see Exhibits from memo of July 28, 1993). One diagram illustrated that a driveway next to the house could be a problem, i.e. dust, children playing, etc. Another example illustrated that under old regulations, a variance would be needed while under the new Shoreland Regulations, no variance would be required. Gaffron discussed information from the handout "Performance Zoning", i. e. permitted design deviation, lot width and definition of flag lots/diagrams with examples of good and bad lot development. Our code states that all lots created by a subdivision should be served by interior roads for safety reasons. This handout also suggests that the flag pole portion of a lot .should not receive credit for determining the average lot area. Rowlette questioned how this would make the lot different from an outlot. Schroeder noted the end result would be the same, its just how it is defined. This leaves three diflerent ways to de.scribe the same situation. The Planning Commission will have to decide which is the best definition to use. Nolan noted there will be non-conformance situations no matter which definition is chosen. Schroeder thought flag lots are not necessarily bad. Rowlette agreed referring to examples presented earlier. Smith asked if Gaffron had talked with other cities to see how they address flag lots with shoreline. Schroeder noted some negatives of flag lots are the driveway g ,..g past someone ’s house and a back lot next to someone ’s front yard. Rowlette felt there could be opportunities in writing an ordinance that would address some of these issues such as the kind and area of screening/buffering needed. Nolan thinks there is a need to have flexibility in the Code, especially when topography is considered. Gaffron responded that one way to add this flexibility is to make a flag lot a variance every time. Rowlette noted that in a recent Watertown Road application iliere was a lot of discussion about positioning the road. In that case, the driveway was an outlot. Mabusth asked if the setback from a driveway easement is an issue that should be addressed at this time and if the setback for an existing house and the closest part of an outlet should be a front street setback rather tha i a side setback creating a larger buffer. Rowlette ard Nolan were concerned about how the setbacks would at feet the property with the new house aiyt wanted to assure sufficient buffering. PUBLIC HEARING ON FLAG LOT ISSUES August 18, 1993 G ilTron discussed the potential issue of access points and public safety. If a Hag lot is created, doc.s each lot require a driveway? Would a shared driveway be a solution? Smith suggested a cul-de-sac for three homes to share. Nolan questioned who would be responsible for the cost of a newl> created cul-de-sac. 'fhe property adjacent to the subdivided property has no interest in sharing the cost of a cul-de-sac and it doesn't seem fair to make him participate. Nolan felt that one of the negative effects of flag lots is the look of crowding since there could be two or three driveways with little space between them. Topography can play an important role in determining the safest location for driveway access. Rowlette pointed out that on a County road, the County may not grant another access. At this time, a cul-de-sac would need to serve three or more units on a private road to meet the standards. Gaffron thought there could be t.he possibility of creating standards for a cul-de-sac serving two units. It may be possible to create circumstances when flag lots will be allowed with a vaj ’^mce and another set of circumstances where flag lots will not be allowed. Gaffron cautioned members on writing into fhe code reasons to grant a variance. Nolan would consider establishing minimum requirements. Schroeder asked if there were any comments from the public. Tom McCarthy stated he previously lived on Baldur Park Road w here lot widths were 50’ and agreed with the concerns Planning Commission members have about intrusion of headlights and setbacks. Knowing limitations are helpful. McCarthy wondered if the City was expecting many similar requests. Rowlette thought this could be an issue since Tonkawa Road is a good example of lots which could become flag lots. People on Baldur Park Road knew what to expect when they moved there because of the high density. The neighbor across from McCarthy, David Schneider, stated he was opposed to the subdivision of McCarthy’s lot because of aesthetics. Although discussion was not about this particular application, .he felt that neighboring properties were affected and had little opportunity for input. He was worried there may be an excessive number of lots requesting subdivision. Schroeder pointed out the Planning Commission was trying to determine if there was an ordinance that g,ves the City the control it wants in light of the new Shoreland Regulations and an inconsistency that has developed inadvertently. Smith asked the public what they thought seemed to be reasonable regarding flag lots. Schneider referred to the negative impact aesthetically of having another house constructed when they moved to this area for p.'-ivacy. Schroeder pointed out that prior to purchasing, it would be the responsibility of the buyer to ascenain what properties may be subdividable. McCarthy thought each .situation has its ow n specific needs and should be considered as a variance. Schneider reiterated :hat how- a subdivisi»>n affects adjacent properties should be the major concern rather than standa-ds for the newly created lot. McCarthy referred to the Troy Anderson application where screening was required because of neighbor opposition. 3 PUBUC HEARING ON FLAG LOT ISSUES August 18, 1993 Smith asked Schneider to respond to the comment he Itad made about preferring individual driveways to shared driveways. He thought more problems are to be expected with shared driveways. Rowlette noted that future buyers of the shared driveway would be aware of this when purchasing the property. Gaf-fion listed three different ways of administering lots: 1.Variance procedure. Every situation will require a variance with proof of hardships and a list of conditions. 2.Conditional Use Permit. Write all standards in the code that a flag lot should be. If these standards are not met, an application could be made tor a variance to the conditional use. 3.Write strict enough standards into the ordinance where flag lots could only be created under very strict conditions. Nolan felt the preference for Orono has been the variance procedure, reviewing each application. Rowlette recommended that Orono have strict standards and -m see only those applicati.)ns that want to go through the variance procedure, i.e. CUP. Row'e.tc does not want to see every application for a flag lot. Schroedcr felt there were not many c the.se situations so there would not be an excessive number of applications to review if each one were brought before the Planning Commission. Rowlette feels there will be more flag lot situations in the future. Gaffron explained how a conditional use permit differs from a variance. A conditional use permit sets up standards so that if they are met, even though the applicant appears before the Planning Commission, the applicant has a reasonable expectation that the conditional use permit will be granted. Rowlette then thought she may prefer to see strict standards written into the code so that each flag lot does not have to be reviewed by the Planning Commission. Nolan asked if something could be drafted in a way that would not require every application to be reviewed. Gaffron felt it may be possible and he could try by addressing some v.f the issues discussed such as buffering and 50’ setbacks. Smith stated she liked the idea of a mini-cul-de-sac to ser\'e two lots in a subdivision. Roulette felt cul-de-s:tcs take away from the rural character of the City. Nolan felt there may be some situations where a cul-de-sac may be appropriate and others where it would not be appropriate. Smith was thinking of public safety where a cul-de-sac would avoid several driveway.s feeding onto a busy roadway. Gaffron suggested a shared driveway may be a goal anu Rowlette agreed. Smith was agreeable to this concept. Nolan pointed out that there may be topograpl'.ic"situations where a shared driveway is net vhe best solution. PUBLIC IIEARINC; ON FLAG LOT LSSUFS August 18, 1993 Sdirocdcr asked if anything should be done about the inconsistency with the Shoreland Regulations and questioned if a recommendation should be made to return to previous regulations so these flag lot situations would be reviewed. Rowlette noted that they would be reviewed anyway because the developer would bring the subdivision application to the Planning Commission. Gaffron asked if flag lots should be an allowed use that does not icquire a variance or a use that needs a variance so that Planning Commission could request changes. Schroeder would prefer the variance approach. Rowlette feels that if the rules Nvere well written, there would be less need to review every detail and less bureaucracy. Mabusth asked about the problem of flag lots and the lot not meeting the width at the cul- de-sac. There may need to be a minimum width set for such lots. Gaffron noted that most cul- de-sac lots require a variance. He also pointed out that these are lakeshore lots and under the current Shoreland Ordinance, no variance would be required. Schroeder thinks a variance should be required. If it makes .sense, the flag lot would be approved. Rowlette would still like to see an attempt made to write a strict ordinance regarding flag lots. For example, only a certain percentage of flag lots would be allowed with a new subdivision of more than two lots. Nolan would still lean toward the variance procedure because of the unique topographies in Orono, however, he would like to see a possible ordinance. Gaffron asked members to attempt to put some ideas together and submit these ideas to him and he would try to draft an ordinance. Schroeder noted some issues to be resolved include whether measurement of a lakeshore lot at the front and back should be retained, how a flag lot might automatically be permitted, the length of the flagpole relative to the proximity of the house (buffer), and does the buffer need to paved? gravel? or dust? Nothing needs to be concluded from the current meeting. Gaffron asked for a list ol conditions from members of the Planning Commission so that he can w'ork with them. This could then be discussed at a later meeting. Schroeder asked that the Planning Commission focus on the change in the way calculations arc done for lot width and the need for variances relative to what w'as done before and after adoption of the Shoreland Regulations. Since there is a ninety day moratorium, Schroeder would recommend reverting to the pre-existing condition of measuring at the street and at the lake because an acceptable flag lot formula has not been developed. The next Planning Commission meeting is scheduled for September 20, 1993. Mabusth asked members to consider a work session to further discuss these issues. It was determined that morning meetings do not provide enough time to accomplish recommendations so an evening meeting at 6:30 p.m. would be more productive. Members thought clarification of what the Council really wanted the Planning Commission to consider in relation to lakeshore flag lots/outlots was necessary and if non- lakeshore flag lots should also be considered. The same concerns are raised for both types ot PUBLIC HEARING ON FLAG LOT ISSUES August 18, 1993 lots. Schrocdcr thought one of the major issues was the change in measurement of lakeshorc lots and the ramifications of measuring from the front and back lot line. Rowlette asked what the ramifications arc of not changing the current measurements in the Shoreland Regulations. Gaffron explained that anyone who wants to do a flag lot on the lakeshorc and meets the area requirements, doesn’t have to meet the width at the street setback and does not need a variance. Rowlette stated that if an ordinance were written with strict enough standards, there would be no need to return to standards prior to the Shoreland Regulations. Gaffron agreed. Rowlette stated an ordinance would need to be written that is strict enough to meet all concerns or return to previous standards and she thinks the Planning Commission should try to do this. Schroeder would prefer recommending to the Council that they go back to the previous way of calculating lot width and then work over the next 90 days to draft a new ordinance. Rowlette felt the moratorium was already doing that. Nolan stated that if at the end of 90 days the Planning Commission has not resolved the issue, then the recommendation could be given to Council to return to previous calculations. Rowlette thought it wouldn’t imake any difference which way the Planning C'^mmission acted. Gaffron felt the Council should be informed of the progress of the Planning Commission and will write a memo to Co. icil. The meeting adjourned at 8:47 p.m. To: From: Date: Subject: Mayor Callahan and Orono Councilmembers Ron Moorse. City Administrator Michael P. GalTron, Assistant Planning & Zoning Administrator Aucust 26, 1993 Update on Flag I^t Review List of Exhibit A - Diauram - Front/Back Lot Situations The Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider flag lot issues at 7:00 p.m. on Wednesday. August 18. While no specific recommendation to Council was ctiiJuded, the general direction of the discussion was as follows: 1.There was general discussion on the background of the changes to lot widtli measurement under the new Shoreland Regulations. Chairman Schroeder, who was on the Lake Use Committee that reviewed the Shoreland Regulations agreed that there was never a specific intent to make flag lots on the lakeshore an allowed use. Much of the discussion centered around the fact that whether the City allows flag lots , front and hack lots with an outlot access, or front and back lots with merely an access easement over the front lot , the impact on the neighboring properties is the same. The rationale behind use of an access outlot versus use of a flag lot was discussed, in terms of our past code definitions and requirements. It was noted that under the current code, the "flag pole" portion of a flag lot is creditable lot area, where an outlot or an access ea.sement are not creditable. It was also noted that typical model ordinance definitions of flag lot specifically disallow crediting the flag pole portion towards required lot area. Planning Commission discu.ssed at some length the .specific impacts of front/back lot development in general. These include: a. b. Back lot ’s driveway abuts front lot ’s side and back yards. This leads to concerns about noise, headlights, dust, child safety, and other potential negative impacts. .Some of these negative impacts might be minimized by requiring greater lot area for the rear lot, requiring greater setbacks for the rear lot, and requiring greater than normal .screening and buffering. update on Flag Lot Review Aueust 26, 1993 Page 2 e. d. There is also greater potential impact on abutting property owners not involved in the subdivision. Npecifically those adjacent to the Hag pole access portion. Perhaps minimum standards could be set tor when a flag lot might or might not be allowed, depending on pre-existing neighboring development. The issue of the number of curb cuts in a given distance on a busy road is a valid health, safety and welfare concern. The Planning Commission members felt generally that controls on the use of front/back lots is needed, but had varying opinions on whether the control should be to make all flag lots a variance : or make them a conditional use which requires Council appioval bui which would normally be approved if strict specific conditions are met; or whether they should be an allowed use under very strict administrative controls, which if not met would still require a variance. Planning Commission indicated they would like to take a stab at compiling a strict set of standards for use of flag lots or front/back lot situations, and give that further consideration as to whether the variance method is the most appropriate control. Their intent would be to schedule a work session in approximately three weeks, by which time members would have forwarded their suggested standards to staff for compilation. Planning Commission questioned whether their proposed process and expansion of the issue to consider general front/back lot issues rather than strictly fcKusing on lakeshore flag lots, was beyond the scope of Council’s intended direction. It may be necessary to address all the issues to reach a suitable conclusion on flag lots. If Council has concerns regarding the scope of Planning Commission’s review, please advise. Isv >■Performance ZoningLane Kendig will) Susan Connor, Cranston Byrd, and Judy Heyman Planners I’rcss American PlanntnR Association VVashinglon, D.C. Chicago, Illinois t \Contents 'j I. Publislicr's l-oreword About the Aulliors .. Acknowlcilgmcnls ..VIIviiiix 1 3 5 13 It 15 16 19 The Concept of Performance Zoning Introduction ....................................... Why Performance Zoning?.............................. Variables........................................... Size.................................................... Shape ................................................ Natural Resources ................................ Design ................................................. Convcnlion.il Cookie-Culler Design 20 Good Design ........................................... The Standards......................................... Open Space Ratio........................ Impervious Suiface Ratio ...........................................’ Density ......................................... Door Area Ratio................................................. Site Capacity and Land Use Intensity ..........................* * * * Conventional Zoning-District Selection Densit) Zoning................................................. Performance Zoning......................................... Site Capacity Calculation ............................................... Rational Land Valuation....................................... Sufferyards................................................. Purpose ........................................... Flexibility........................................... Variables.................................................... I lierarchy............................................... Del. mination of Duffer.............................. Mousing ............................................. Single-F. " ily Detached ................................................... Lot-Lin use ............................................. Village IL e ................................................... Twin Mou ............. 21 25 26 27 28 29 33 34 30 37 38 43 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 II. I V.h’o I louse ..........................Allium Mouse . . ..................................................................................................Weak-LinL lownhouse ................... Town Mouse ............................ .......................... ” Multiplex ............................... ............................ Apartments............................................................. ^ I lousing Ci>sl ..................................... ............................ Variable Li'Is ........................ ......... Scale of Development ............ Transporlatii>n................................ .................................... Road Classification System ......................................... ^ Arterial Streets ........... Residential Streets ................................ I'.iclorsAlfccling Street Width.......... . . .................... • l’ei(orm.ince St.itul.irds (or Slrceis .......................................... 7, I’ulling It All Together............................!!!!!.’!.’!............... it Wilderness District ...... .............................. Agricultuf.il District ........................................................ ° Conservation District .......................... Rural District ........................................................................... Estate District ... ..............................**********••••••• ••••••«• Development District ................................ Urban Core District ............................ ** ...................... Summary ............................ ............................ ^ Model Ordinance .............................. Table of Contents Article I: Title. Purpose, and lurisdtclion .............Q<! Article II: Delinitions .................................... Article III: Lslablishment of Zrming Districts ......... no Article IV: Regulations................... Article V: Detailed Use Regulations.................................... 2’2 Article VI: Noncc»nlormities ................................ 240 Article VII; Comluinn.il t Isrs.................... ^55 Article VIII: Development Altern.itives .iiul Ikmuses!!!!! 260 AiticleIX: Admmistratior.andhnfotieinent ..................... 265 V::V.;• • •.AO -xO f> 2-S^ 3. V )crc a building is placed on a parcel such ih.il its entire tront IS r\ot parallel to the street, as illustrated below, the minitmim yard requirements may he met by averaging the yard rvidth from onr end of the building (point .^ in the illustration) to the other end of the building (point H). provided that the yard at Its narrowest point is not less than eighty (60) |)crccnt of the minimum yard required by Section 52CH). V here buildings arc aligned to achieve proper solar orientation and vnits arc designed for solar collectors or passive solar heating the narrowest point of any yaril shall not he less than sixty-five (65) percent of the miniinum yaid ie(|uireil by Scctii»n 52(X) Tur- Iher. a shadow plan based on a statement ol the degree of solar ac ­ cess to be provided each unit and containing th»* covenants limiting landscaping shall he submitted. reimitted .d^sign^deviations: minimum lot widi), In ih» l.ai .....:.... street r^iiiecl b> ^5200 in.iy be v.ined as indicated below. I Where a dwelling lot is laid out so that it lakes access from a com- men open-space area or pedesihan path rather than from a street Ifie requirement tliat a minimum amount of the lot front on a street need not be met. Ifiis provision applies to all of the follow- ••>K unit types: single-family, lot-lme. village house, patio house alri.im house, and duplex, provided that an alley provides for in- d.vidual auto access to a garage, carport, or driveway on each lot and ih.q pn,, c,f a lot shall he w.thin one hundred and twenty - cc o a street rig,hl-of-way along the open space. (Aller- n.-<.vely. these unit types may be varied by the following subscc- 234 2. Comment ary: In a iicvcloinnent oriented tcwai^i • yen space, such access is perfectly acceptahic. so tong as an autiM.: '*»nV can reach each unit. Each unit is assnfrtt adequate access. i “ v/i 15 the purpose of requiring the frontage on a street. See the foihiring il­ lustration. Where a dwelling lot is laid ou\ so ihal it lakes access from a com­ mon open space or pedestrian path, the minimum width of a slrccl required in Section 4705 may be substituted by compliance with the following standartls (m the case of patio fioiises. atrium houses, lownhouses. ami weak-link town houses). Where the open space or pedestrian area is at least twenty (20) feet wide, units with no frontage or width may be up to ninety (90) feet from the street right-of-way. Where the open space is less tlian twenty (20) feet wide, th»* units with no frontage may be up to sixty (60) feet from the street right-of-way. For atrium houses and patio houses reached by pedestrian ways five (5) to ten (iO) leet wide, the units may be located up to forty (40) feet Irom a street right- of-way. Sec the following illustration. Commentary: Where units (other than single family) front on common open space, alleys are not essential, since off dot irarking IS more amrrepnate. The distance a lot can he set hack fnmi a street is related to the width of the ffcilestnan access. Only those units that are surrounded hy walls can locate on narrow pedestrian accesses, since the walls afford adilitional/notectum to the access. 235 •C 3. Where a street dead-ends, leaving part of a lot fronting; on <»pcn space (as illustrated below), the lot need only have (rontaj»e of ten (10' feel. 236 f lap, lots. A flap lot is a lot which has minimum fronlaKe on a public or private street, which is reached via a private drive or lane, and whose wklth some distance back from the street bound­ ary line meets all ordinance requirements. Sec the followinp il­ lustration. . V’., S ): >’ :A 1 G ». Flay; lots shall be pcrmilled, even ihougli they do not meet the minimum lot width requirements at the street boundary line, only in the following instances: a. Where the flag lot makes it possible belter to utilize irregular­ ly shaped properties or areas with resource liniilations. Commentary: Proffcrty irrc,^nlaritic5 often result in waste of land which could be better utilized through use of the flag lot as illuslrated bclouK '• -G-/'y.- ■ I . fv. V ••• . • :G .' . ■ ■ ■ . ■ 4 " G ( . ) b.Where the flag lots are used to eliminate any accesses to col­ lector or arterial roads. Commentary: The use of conventional lots encourages the developer to lose a lot or to seek access to a collector or arterial road. The use of the flag lot may avoid this. V fiT Tiinilti 'riliiii biii" iin # i^ii ■[m~iiTii i ~in i~ir G 238 In any cvcnl: a. No more than ten (10) percent of the lots In a subdivision may be flag lots. b. Flag lots shall not be permitted whenever their effect would be to increase the number of lots taking access to a collector or arterial road. Commentary: This criterion ffrohibits one of the most com­ mon abuses, the use of flag lots to avoid the develo^fmental costs of roads (see illustration below). These sites are best developed without flag lots, even if the cost of the lots is thereby increased, since controlling access reduces congestion on major roads. prohibned 1 i 1 i 1 permitted 11 1 1 1 1 . n-*•:' ) c. That portion of a flag lot shown as shaded in the following il­ lustration shall not be included as a part of the lot area for the purpose of determining average lot area. # V' iTirr n To: From: Date; Subject: Chairman Schroedcr and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator Michael P. Gaffrun, Assistant Planning & Zoning Administrator August ll. 1993 Wednesday. August 18, 1993 Special Meeting of Planning Commission • 6:30 p.m. (Note time change) • Orono Council Chambers Attached is an information packet for the "Flag Lot" public hearing and discussion to be held at 7:00 p.m. ne.xl Wednesday. At their August 9 meeting. Council directed that the hearings scheduled for 7:15 p.m. and 7:30 p.m. regarding an Interim Storm Water Ordinance and Flood Plain/Wetlands Regulations Revisions, be continued indefinitely until Council has had a chance to review and discuss these items. Council also scheduled a joint work session with Planning Commission at 6:30 p.m. on the IStli to discuss and relay Council ’s views regaiding the B-2 Zonintz District (Marina) Standards . This was the subject of a Planning Commission hearing on March 15 and work session on April 8 (minutes enclosed). Since a majority of the current Planning Commission was not on board in March and April. I will provide you with a packet of information on this topic at least a week in advance of any hearings/work sessions/discussions that may be scheduled in the future. 6:30 p.m. 7:00 p.m 7:15 p.m. - AGENDA - V\T:DNESDAY AUGUST 18 - Council/Planning Commission Work Session (B-2) Public Hearing - Flag Lot Issues Public Hearing - Interim Storm Water Management Ordinance (to be continued to a later date) 7:30 p.m. PubMc Hearing - Flood Plain/Wetlands Ordinance Amendments (to be continued to a later date) p MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD MARCH 15, 1993 ZONING FILE #1298 - CONT.,Lt - UUNI . It was moved by recommend approval of AppI Icatlon #l298^a.-p«1'TTT^n-ta..^ portions of for seven of_^t4=te^^en properties owo^rs involved with the appi icat iocK^-C^ed on the findings present eSTr-^Aoces 4, nays 0. (#2) ZONING AMENDMENT - SECTION 10.41, B-2 LAKESHORE BUSINESS DISTRICT - INFORMATION MEETING 8:25 - 9:05 P.M. xL Callahan stated the Council was not there to Present their views ^ but rather to hear the input from the Commission. He noted the proposed ordinance assumes that current marina uses would be allowed to continue until a requested change In marina or use. He suggested they not cons-hder attaching land use provisions to number of slips allowed. He added the ordinance was not sent to the Commission because of the need to amend, but merely to review an consider amendments. Gaffron reviewed that the City has licensed marinas since the 1960s. In 1985 the City considered the license considered approval of a conditional use permit instead, which was not well received by marinas. In the past few years, it has become clear that the City must recognize activities and changes on marina propertIes. Gaffron reviewed the three types of uses (permitted, conditional, and accessory). He noted that the IT® Hated t?B-2 orooerty should not be used solely to sell boats. He stateo it Is hoped that over a period of time, the City will have the mechanics to bring existing ">a''lnas 'nd t™a*t"'VhoHreviewed to the references to the LMCO code and that tno references may be outdated. Callahan i.oted It Is the Council's Intent to remove any reference to the LMCD ordinance from the code. jabbour noted that the LMCO has admitted they would have difficult enforcing their ordinance on dry stacking. Callahan noted the LMCD does not have control over land use act Ivi11es. Jabbour asked that ® ^rrl^\rto^7n^ToTtr'lTK;s “^^^^^^^ ramp activities. He felt this to be selective governing. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD MARCH 15, 1993 ZONING AMENDMENT - CONT. Cohen *eferred to Page 1 where it states a request may be reviewea by the Planning Commission and/or a Special Lake Use Committee. Goetten explained the Lake Use Committee is an Ad Hoc Committee in place and dealing with lake Issues, Including marinas. Cohen felt it to be a double layer of bureaucracy. Jabbour reviewed former Councils wanted the language of the ordinance to be vague and to allow them the ability to make individual decisions. The current Council Is attempting to bless the existing conditions and make reasonable, achievable expectations for future use of the properties. Callahan stated In the would supervise marinas noted Orono hopes to control of the business In relationship to the enforce the ordinance, of the seven marinas in has focussed on the bus past it was assumed by Orono that the LMCD , but that has been found to be untrue. He establish the following: have reasonable ; have reasonable control of the land use business; and give staff the abiIity to He stated the DNR is likely to remove two Orono. He indicated the Lake I'se Committee iness aspects of the marinas. Gaffron noted again that past licensing policies have proved Ineffective. He said the code lacks provisions to bring ^”®se businesses Into greater compliance with performance standards absent a request for a permit, conditional use permit or variance; yet this seems to be what a number of residents hoping for. Bellows explained the Lake Use Committee was directed to review that aspect. She felt the landscaping areas of the code were too stringent. She added the existing marinas do not come close to compliance in their current state. Gaffron noted they basically comply with past agreements and conditions attached to licenses issued by the City. He added none of thefn meet the required setback or hardcover I Irnlts. Bel I owe felt they should establish an ordinance more closely related to real 1ty. Jabbour noted that were added without ordinance. He felt zone to comply with the MPCA and EPA wl management plan. a number of Improvements to existing marinas approval and after adoption of the current It unrealistic for the City to expect the B-2 existing setbacks. He stated in the near future II mandate all marinas to submit a storm water MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD MARCH 15, 1993 ZONING AMENDMENT - CONT. Peterson noted the lack of mention of milfoil in the ordinance, and suggested It be a requirement to provide an area for transients to clean off their boats and trailers. Bellows suggested that the ordinance have a reasonabIeness. degree Gaffron Indicated that the site-related requirements of the ordinance are normally not enforced or reviewed until a new application is presented, as is the case in virtually all other business and residential zones. Bellows asked that the.CommIssI on be presented with a comparison of the existing marinas and how they comply with the current ordI nance. Peterson asked that Page 8, Subsection 15 be explained. Gaffron did so, and added many "non-conforming structures" which exist today have been allowed through past variance approval. Debbie Brenaman, North Shore Drive Marina, stated they have a large lot and are able to comply with most of what the City requires, but city needs to decide who Is to play "Cod' In these Issues, and whether or not Orono Is with the LMCD or not. She stressed the need for consistency, and pointed out their license was not ssued because of the lack of plantings, which the City had removed In the past and never replaced adequately. Jim Rivers, Windward Marina, felt they need to establish minimum standards, and should not have a code no one can meet. He added Orono has never been happy with the marina operations over the past 20 years. Dasiirtwc in Its effort to preserve the lake as a resource, the ctUTay overlooked the ma^ needs. She felt they need reasonable standards. ^ .. . j vw-a. thAv need a land use ordinance that Is related ??Ve“;rMre! 2e*nrted'’mU Of the complaints received In the past 6 months have been addressed. Bellows suggestel a work session prior to the public hearing on April 19th to review the ordinance. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD MARCH 15, 1993 ZONING AMENDMENT - CONT. Peterson asked whether It is possible to have m'nimum standards for existing marinas and different, more stringent standards for new marinas. Jabbour stated the City cannot do that. Brenaman asked that the City tell them the perfect scenario. Jabbour stated he has worked since 1972 on abiding by the perfect standards, which has proved to be a very diluted concept. He noted there is no way additional property would be rezoned to B-2, so they must adopt an ordinance existing B-2 properties can comply with. Gaffron noted that various marinas have tried to comply In good faith, but have found It Impossible. Goetten noted the land area of most of the marinas Is very limited. Peterson asked how many existing marinas have pumpout stations, and asked that be addressed in the ordinance. way. Brenaman stated the licensing procedure used to be simple and effective and felt they should return to that way. Bellows closed the public information portion of the meeting at 9:16 p.m. Jabbour Introduced Don Germanson. former president of the LMLOA. («3) 4M804 MICHAEL REVIER, 2691 ETHEL AVENUE - VARIANCE - PUBLIC HEARING 7:30 - 8:10 P.M The Affidavit of PubIIcation and Certificate of Mai Iing were noted. Gil Landsledel represented the applicant. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING CONLMISSION WORK SESSION, WEDNESDAY, APRH. 8, 1993 The Planning Commission met on the above date with the following m^'n^bers Maureen BeUoNVS, Candy Rowlette, Stephen Peterson. Jeff Johnson and ^ was represented by: Building & Zoning Administrator Jeanne Mabusth Zoning^ Administrator Michael Gaffron. Debra Breneman representing North Shore Drive Marina was also in attendance. The meeting was called to order at 5:35 p.m. Gaffron started with a brief review of the B-2 Zoning District history, noting that the B-2 standards were a point of much discussion prior to adoption of the 1975 zoning ^ time the marina owners were concerned that the standards proposed for adoption “““ n°‘^ realistically met by the existing marinas. He noted that a review of the minutes suggest that the City recognize that Bexibility in enforcement of the B-2 standards would be necessary. Gatiron also noted that landscaping was the only code provision requiring a staged time-frame for ^tatoa tag 01 reducing the'degree of non-conformities. Most other existing non-conformities “rceforth only Sealt wiS, at the time a variance or site plan approval was requested m conTunctiSn with application for a building permit. He further noted that a thorough review as oart of a major site revamping had been done within the last five to six years with three of our six marinas ^ In each case, the City approved a site plan and felt that it gained certain upgra es in conformity which offset the variances for setbacks or hardcover which were needed m each case. Gaffron went on to note that aside from site related issues, there are concerns related to the operation of marinas which have been brought forth by members of the public >n ._ .red diat an attempt was made by the City in 1985 to make mannas a conditional use m the B 2 zone but that met with much resistance from the marinas. This CUP proposal was the resist of ^ maril not complying with certain code sections, me City denying Itcenres fo those marinas but not forcing them to cease operations. He noted that while some but not marinas who apply and then deal with issues 7 ,h mTzonhig code. He suggested that the current zoning code language probably does not coiuafn the necessary mechanisms to require upgrades in many of the non-conformities that the public might want to see happen. Cohen noted that the -annas have existed are protected neTm rtas and does not relate very well to the our code seems to Uiat we may need to adopt some realistic Sards™ Cohen indicated that tiie assist'ance of the marim operators would definitely be needed in order that the Planning Commission understand what is realistic. 1 Deb Breneman of North Shore Drive Marina noted diat she would support realistic sttindards, and would hope that the City would enforce Uiose standards equally for all mannas. She also brought up the issue of die LMCD/City jurisdictional question. Bellows clarified for die Planning Commission members that generally the City has Jurisdiction over the land, t ic .. has jurisdiction over the water, but there are some overlapping gray areas related to docks an boat storage on the land. Breneman indicated that LMCD has the ability to regulate Rowlette suggested it may be helpful for staff to provide additional background on the LMCU code. Bellows reiterated that we need to determine realistic standards to regulate marinas in an equitable manner. She noted it probably is unfair to require major concessions of a manna making an application to the City while allowing the others to continue in relative non- compliance. Cohen questioned whether the LMCD should have control over marinas and the City should stay out of it. Gaffron noted that the City Council apparently is not completely satisfied with how the LMCD has handled its jurisdiction on the lake, and the Council is therefore unlikely to relinquish iheir jurisdiction on land. Cohen suegesteJ that the Cit^ staff find out how the other Lake Minnetonka cines with marinas regulate them. Mabusth noted that the City Attorney has advised that the Ci^ could adopt ordinances to regulate docks and the lake, as long as those ordinances were not less restrictive than LMCD’s ordinances. Cohen suggested that if all fourteen cities had identical ordinances, we might be in a better position for dealing with LMCD. Bellows noted that without a greater understanding of the Council's perspective on the LMCD, it is verv difficult to proceed. Mabusth added that the Planning Commission is at a disadvantage from the standpoint that they have never been involved in the license reviews, and genera y . a little involvement in dealing with the specific marinas, while there are cuirenUy memlKrs of d.e City Council who were quite involved in the marina committee and dealing with marmas. She noL that it would have been very helpful for today's meeting if more of the marma operator tad attended to give their perspective. Breneman suggested that those mannas may be c^L"sol®type of litigation against the City, and that is why they have chosen not to attend. Cohen Questioned whether any new standards the Planning Commission might recommend would ta eTforce r g die prlexisting status of the marinas. He questioned whether it was ^proFiate for'the CommisLn to make any suggestions without further background or until the jurisdictional issues are resolved. -^u^tioned as to some of the specific issues of concern to the residents who have ^ HinPd nnd asked Breneman what specific complaints she might have about the other maThias. She indicated that staff had written volumes about each marina. Rowlette asked if that • f i; yn rntild be Disscd on to the Planning Commission, along with ordinances from some LMCD. Johnson asked how the Uike Use Co«e ftemrerimo the picture. Gaffron noted that the Lake Use Committee after completing its In regards to the marinas which have redeveloped and constructed new buildings in recent years, in response to a comment that the marinas seem to be allowed much more flexibility with setbacks and hardcover standards than we afford our residential areas, Gaffron noted that in each case where the City has allowe'd construction of a new marina building or expansion of parking, the City ultimately felt that the improvements being made yielded a much better product than what previously existed. After the review of the marina issues, Cohen noted that since many of these issues have been continuing for manv years, it will likely be very difficult from a legal standpoint to resolve them. Peterson agreed, noting that a history of denying licenses but allowing continued operation doesn ’t make enforcement now any easier. It was noted that marinas who had not regularly received Orono licenses had in many cases received LMCD licenses. Planning Commission exoressed some consternation at the fact that there are two corcurrent licensing bodies. It was reiterated that the LMCD exerts jurisdiction over the water, and the City e.xerts Jurisdiction over the land. Gaffron noted that what happens on the land does affect what happens on the water and visa versa, hence out of practical necessity there will be some overlap. Discussion ensued about the multiple Jurisdictions, and whether the multiple licensmg is appropriate. There also was discus.sion regarding the City’s enforcement ability for existing marinas and the consequences of attempting to force a non-compliant marina to not open this spriii- ’ It was generally recognized that to do so would yield a battle in the courts, but the Planning Commission showed no consensus as to whether this would be an appropriate action. It was also acknowledged that we likely will not see any new marinas built, but only rebuilding of the existing marinas. Bellows summarized the discussion by requesting tliat staff provide the information previously noted and that the committee cannot make any reasonable progress towards commg up with a suitable ordinance until the Planning Commission and Council can meet at a Joint session at which Council can give Planning Commission a better sense of what tlieir goals are regarding marinas provide additional background on the Jurisdictional relatioirship between Orono and the LMCD, providing the Commission with a clearer direction Gaffron noted that the scheduled April 19th public hearing should be held ever to a future date to be announced, presumably after tlie Plaiming Commission and Council have had their joint meeting. The meeting was adjourned at 6:55 p.m. i i i To: From: Cliainnan Schroeder and Orono Planning Commission Mcinhers Ron Moorse, City Administrator Michael P. Gaffron, Assistant Planning & Z.oning Administrator Date:August 6, 1993 Subject: Ordinance Amendment - Definition of Lot Width/Flag Lots - Public Hearing List of Exhibits A - Staff Sketch - Hypothetical Example For Discussion B - Plat Map Examples C - Staff Memo 6/16/93 Background Based on the historic definition of lot width (measured at the "rear of the front yard"), non-lakeshore cul-de-sac lots and flag iots have always required a lot width variance. However, for lakeshore lots, which had no "front yard”, but only a "rear yard" and "lakeshore", staff as a matter of policy measured lakeshore lot widths at the street setback line and the lake setback line. The definition of lot width w-as revised w'hen the Shoreland Regulations were adopted to require that lakeshore lots meet the required width only at the shoreline and at the lake setback line. This eliminated the need for variances for most lakeshore cul-de-sac and flag lots. However, the Lake Use Committee reviewed the Shoreland Regulations merely in the context of cul-de-sac lots and the issue of lakeshore flag lots was not considered. Since the City in recent years has generally moved toward creating driveway outlots rather than flag lots, the shoreland lot width definition resulted in an unanticipated inconsistency. Application #1825 on Old Beach Road, was the first lakeshore lot subdivision the City has dealt with on a General Development lake since the Shoreland Regulations were adopted. Both Planning Commission and Council members expressed a concern that while the creation of flag lots had not been allowed anywhere under the prior code, the new shoreline regulations did not continue that policy. Planning Commission recommended denial of the application based on hardcover issues having to do w ith the driveway within the narrow platted corridor. Council subsequently directed that the issue of lot width for lakeshore lots be studied, since they w'ere not aw'arc that flag lots would be allowed under the new regulations, and asked for time to reconsidered the code requirements, and possibly amend the code if that seems appropriate. A 90-day moratorium was adopted for subdivisions proposing flag lots. Use of Flag Lots T.ie Flag lot might be defined in a number of ways, but is not currently defined in the zoning code. One definition might be: "A lot typically separated from a public or private road by another lot and which gaims access to the public or private road via a narrow corrid.^r typically 10’ to 50 ’ in width, which is part of the flag lot". Another way to look at it is that Ordinance Amendment - Definition of Lot Width/Flag Lots - Public Hearing July 28. 1993 Page 2 a flag lot is the result of subdividing a deep lot in half to create a "front lot" and "back lot , with a connecting corridor along side the front lot for access to the rear lot. The City has generally moved away from allowing creation of flag lots becau.se tliey by definition require a variance. One option the City allowed in the distant past was an easement through the front lot to access the back lot. In contemporary times, however, the City has required that the corridor be platted separately as an outlot when back lots are allowed. No lot area credit is granted for the outlot. From a planning standpoint, not all cities allow the creation of flag lots, and in the definition of flag lot appearing in "The Illustrated Book of Development Definitions" (1981, Rutgers University Press), it is noted that "Flag lots are permitted in rural and developing municipalities to permit development of back land areas while still maintaining their rural character. The usual requirenfents a flag lot are as follows: minimum lot area at least twice the area in the zone where !c«.ated exclusive of the right-of-way connecting the lot with die public road; minimum front, side and rear yard requirements m be met on the portion excluding the right-of-way; minimum of 20’ and maximum of 50 ’ for right-of-way; not more thrm 1 tiag lot for each right-of-way; rights-of-way should be a minimum distance apart of at least the minimum lot width in the particular zone." One negative aspect of a flag lot is that its driveway corridor is adjacent to the side and rear yard of the front lot. SecondFy, the back yard of the front lot abuts the functional front yard of the flag lot and without proper screening and buffering, the flag lot resident may find having rear yard uses abutting his front yard to be visually and otherwise incompatible. Adequate buffering might mitigate this, hence the typical requirement of "twice the required lot area" noted above. Issues related to the number of curb cuts within a given length of busy roadway may be a valid concern in some situations. Fire safety and emergency vehicle access would be a further concern as the narrow corridor extends a greater distance from the road. It should also be pointed out that whether the City allows the creation of flag lots, back lots with cutlot driveways, or front and back lots witli an easement access, the functional result is the same. Staff Recommendation This is a public hearing, and Planning Commission is requested to consider whether flag lot are appropriate on lakeshore or generally in the City. Identification of issues and concerns about the use of flag lots will help in determining whether a code amendment is appropriate and how it might be structured. Staff would, if appropriate, bring options back to Planning Commission for further consideration. i ^><A>VMPte L>tSCctSS/0/VJ I'AO, ^OT /^o'tAJ\t>7^ ^35' ^ido/wr ^ 10' 3.r' 'Srn^e^T^'7^*Se^nsAots ^ /vhc. Si*n?,"7 i-«t3 ^ (^Lfo' AT“5i+o/itf 6>2^0 '7T %.&T^ACJC. ' " " SC^O* STviA.>c.i+r A/Ajf A*r SrrttAC^ST«AIC»HT AT ^\Apt€1^tf^€ 200 400 * .* I * - % • » 1 ‘f--• • ^ ^ • *jc JUTLCT C AWitsm, f ': ■ 1 '.■ . • .# ■.r• • •. •.V ^ i V » f . . . : - * • •• CAST 212.84 CAST ^4C:>47 •. •. • • 14141 £4^ST M2»> .... VUh'5 • . • t;*! • % S: ’J'A / zs£.3a iVs- iV- ■ lo •., • • .• '51" ..k^ tV.S*'’ 37 ( 20' A*r •.••.■ * • • A ^ £(f TTSA’Ci^ ,. ■ •• ' '. .‘ • *’■; • ^1 ^A<^ ^ *V‘-r%* /.Vv V • - r • -.• »k!i 4* •■ vlGl,I % .‘V • « • .' *, . _ }i==:=r7^^ ‘ ..V ^ ^Nc. y-» 4 \* . « . •' ■* •. X.'- 7W-- LOT l« # • , %V ♦ r-> CO o-^ o o Part of LOT 15 (0 \ \\ ".NtXIS^. Aitjue. : r </f. • r il / .• V . ".\ 4AL3^, V ^ %Bjj» •* I# p « ai^»Bgpsi5^gg^sBg85g^^ ••'«7 i . “ •V- • ? V^’i’ O,y<: h yrr 'xi: N /• MOERENE c>h /.4/^HoC^f ^4AC> to( 2o' CCvi-^v /2.o ’ Lo/jg. • >.V’. •* ' • i « * • .-.•*. r. • # • i ■■:(>'-if' . V>-. ,‘.r. .'M .'i. 1. V ... . tViHJ 2-M I /: I I .• •. ' .,*• • '.•— •, • • • •- 0 , • * . • • • • V .! • V*.. •' • t.-* -•: (•»*;:'' • • • V • I • *. •• 4- * ^ ' i. •.> f * . , • .* "rl' ■.» 'S.‘V ;V 'V//i ‘V v\W4f.■r^-v f. ti, •." r V i-f* • • ■ • •«» It 1' ’.' ■ t^ IN ■c •■isy £P5;:-;« 5 ; ^ ■ «C/. * ‘'ll o\> ^ ^ *0^ '■•«'•“•';'■ ■ nni UVltl HDVae .• \ . t .‘•VV t itK: •: f; • vt <3:•:•••%./ I A \ iWj %■ , '* • I • . ; .• »■• • r^'v .;■ ■ .'^'!*V • • ^ :* '• »» . ./• ivV '^‘■’' 010 . rV r. !. • » - •» I •^/ >* '^4 I r-r ^ :? .A» /,.y; i.» /T ,//- ‘ • ) -'V.v-v- I ‘ ^ Q ,-v. ' ,-sV.: I ■\ r:i.->.! : 1* ..‘f V ' S/ . . c/^Z6 uxt44jir: rTTVIS !■ .'u?'L •V\ /.y/ V.1 # <11 r W gg'-^i-i I ■ li. n *i 7 It >CC^ S1HDI3 H -= AV8 ’ • ; • Ii l'*'^v*'-r', • ‘ ’ fi ...• \ ;//••• lUl 4 <s#?r.;: / ;/;;r ■ ' , " ‘'/> J'\'-.K CNJ • •.i-'rorn ' / •-»;>? 4hn I vl\yAA ‘^44 ‘ .A ^ / S * t 0 " ' 0//• .■ 4 : ■ ' •Mr- S!G% l-i v'-^:- ■W-\^ ^l-t'r.i: •'■ *• * ‘Aay.\x • .n:iuvr «;h sl W . * . Ul vx3,^ -• //: f f Ul n. ^ * •/ ."^ atfii f: < .'i *- lie K J «4 1 * 5 • ’, • • * 5 I » k • • p • - * • i . r ' .• ««* 4 >#, •. > ... • #• - • • • ^ u . •* ^ *. I . * .1 V I • » I • ‘t • f. V 1. • * * (• K .o'TS ^01V 'a •' ''\ - •Vto ‘ , , • - J jJ . • •* . > . : • \v • •• • » : »v#U^ \ y rx^ OlOiai^Ov , ’fi—-TfS ^j.w I «S 5l i^s !.' / utt/ ... ; • i»V'» ■• .. * . L '.:. i ,• • r> ^ ;■ r;r^.7i) . • • • (.i* ^ P’’ /' m . . r } \iyr^ : *• ’•■•'• ;'.’'.K;v/^>• • * • 'I ^ i >/' J *i . •. / • fh ^0 t K i f • " T * ^ • •.• • f• • j'C' * 1^. N« |\ V A. 15 • I . ‘ . f (a so) 394 Vr S \ •t* Liprinr >* « « f r ^ZOO)In) Vi/L 't /' Sprifii t t u « . ,‘r^A/l ,(I0 <5 \{ . V <9 / ‘h * * 5/*' S' ** .-'r- ^<9 c\^ *. c^'.sC'O f ♦ •'1 • • f »« x/ .i V 4 4 4; ’j / ' re i r* ^ I.__ Lot 150 Spr ing Pork i ■ C^')»>% » : • ,/V, ;?/l ^co J */ 11^ /• _« C//V n e (^6/ %'; I :^l 1 # • » .. • ‘ / . i «• • i ■ . % *. .* • ' f . k • ' ' •; ■« .«r « ‘ ft V-.‘- ♦ • • ft-• •/ ’ • */• • % : • • • ,* * *• • •• *.: .4 * ft I ft * « ft :;o- • ^ . •♦t m . ^ f ■ , . ' 4 .• > '»• * ‘ < . ■. V, ■ >• - ■* •■ ft 4 * • • / % ’ ft « • A'T’ . 1^ l2.o' rno' ipo®^ .—*- . 12 "F VOOU « t'»**•• .* 'iV tiiTt \ •/ .• #*• • * •• • • •! - ^ '. •• ;T v''. 6 >> ■’■■ ’ ■-. .s.v . s• •■ •.;,» ••'. • • r.-'** .. ^ w ».■• -»»- .*■ -1" I • •' \ .. 5?^ I ...J To: From: Date: Subject: Jeanne Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator Ron Moorse, City Administrator Mayor Callahan and Orono Councilmembers Michael P. Gaffron, Assistant Planning & Zoning Administrator June 16, 1993 #1825 Thomas L. McCarthy. 2490 Old Beach Road - Background on: 1. Flag lots/width measurement 2.Hardcover zone balancing List of Exhibits A - Sketches Regarding Lot Width Issue B - Sketches Regarding Hardcover Issue 1. Lot Width Measurement. Before the Shoreland Ordinance was in effect, lot width tor a lakeshore lot was measured (as a matter of policy) at the 75’ setback and the street setback StMC the definition of lot width relied on having a front yard, and lakeshore lots by definition did not have a front yard, this resulted in the need for staff to develop a policy, which we did. During the Shoreland Ordinance review, the Lake Use Commit-.-, icrc'd with that lakeshore lot widths should be measured at the shoreline and at me required lakeshore setback line (7571007150 ’ depending on GD/RD/NE classification), while non-lakeshore lots would continue to have lot width measured at the street setback Ime. Perhaps one of the first cases in which the new definition came into effect was the Boyke subdivision on Lydiard Lake. Because the easterly lot with the house did not abut the shoreline, its width was measured at the street setback line from the driveway outlot The width of the newly created lakeshore lot to the west was mwsurec^ as straight line from the side lot lines at the shoreline and at the 150 ’ setback. this lot had a lengthy narrow "nagpole" section, that met the width standards as does the McCarthy proposal. pnckground Note that for non-lakeshore situations and for lakeshore situations prior to the Shoreland Ordinance, the City has historically seen three options for gaming access to a back lot. These include an easement through the front lot; a flagpole to create a Bag lot; or creation of an outlot over die narrow flagpole portion. Thomas L. McCarthy, Background .. June 16, 1993 Page 2 The easement option t>'pically resulted in lots that didn’t abut either a public or private road, hence a variance for lack of frontage was automatically required. The way to avoid this variance was to create a flag lot extending to the street. However, this resulted in the need to grant a lot width variance since the lot width at the front setback line from the street was merely the width of the flagpole and not even close to meeting the width requirement. The solution to both the easement and flag lot options was the outlet option. By creating an outlet driveway that in a 3»-.ise functioned as a private road, it could be argued that the back lot now abuts a road, and the entire length of the lot line that abuts the outlet would become the front lot line for defining a front setback line and therefore the lot width. Over the last five years or so, the City has normally required the outlet option, and tlie area of the outlet is excluded from lot area. An inadvertent effect of the new shoreland lot width definition was to revive the possibility for flag lots on the lakeshore. This would normally not be an issue e.xcept in a case such as McCarthy ’s where total area of the property does not allow for the outlet option. TTii.'^ leads to issue tfl., i.e. hardcover in the flagpole. 2. Hardcover Zone Balancing. Th^estion here is whether it is legitimate to allow a highprfercentage and square footage^^hardcover in a zone further from the lake, asjprig as the zone closer to the lake is reined by an equivalent square footage^,vro avoid the need for a variance. While i believe this isVlqgical policy rnttfrocedure to have in place, and while I would argue rather vehemently tS'persuad^^ifiyone that this is a reasonable, beneficial, and fair policy, I will concede that th^sj^ot^eeping and future review procedures must be in place so that future problems For instance, if a lot is allowed an extra 1,000 s.f. of hardcover in its 2^00’ zoribsm e.xchange for reducing its allowance in the 75-250’ zone bv that sam<fT,000 s.f., thi^1qust be adequately documented in City files and procedures puyin place so that at sombs^ture date a new owner can ’t be allowed to go up to ^^'25%'' limit since his actualliqut is really 1.000 s.f. less than the 25% figure. Loqjeing at Exhibit B, assume that the entire flagpole pohiQn of the lot is 30’ wide, andm iV wide driveway runs its entire length. This constituteS>5^% hardcover in th^^-500’, where 30% would be allowed, and in the example, results iJK,600 s.f. [cover where only 1,350 s.f. would be allowed at a 30% level. Thomas L. McCarthy, Background June 16, 1993 Page 3 I would argue that the property owner should be allowed the right to have the 250 s f. overage irKhis 250-500’ zone as long as he agrees to reduce tl^25% allowance in his 75-250 ’, by me equivalent 250 s.f. This in essence results in3-24% hardcover limit for his 75-250 ’ zon'^36% limit for his 250-500’ zone, an^^same amount of overall hardcover he would ha\^ad under the standard allowanpe^^ but a greater proportion _of it k fimher from the lake_^ Obviously, we would not allow a situ^dnmat would work the opposite direction, i.e. increasing hardcover nearer the fekeip^change for less hardcover m a zone further from tlie lake. This would be opp^^i^ntent of our "hardcover zones philosophy. If Council would agrep^his hardc^U)olicy interpretation, we would see a few less "nuisance" hardcover variances each>ar, and cause less aggravation for • property owners and pf. ^ ^ ^ clarification of the hardcover ordinancp^athci w.^.. --------» — ^\ ui standpoint, w^h certainly put in place review proceduiH,^ t^^t future problems should not occur. /X^^iance of this police will also allow staff to, in genera>4ga hardcover baWiKina for any lakeshore property requesting a pennit, such that a praRW. /STd hardcover -credit" in a zone nearer the lake can legitimately use that c^t tn a zone further from the lake, without requiring a variance. Recommendation Council has the option of revising the shoreland lot width definition to add die requirement for meeting the width standard at the street setback line as well as at the shoreline and at the lake setback line. However, I don ’t see that this will impact the McCarthy case, since it came in under the current ordinance, I would stroncly recommend tliai ihc Council accept the concept of "balancing" hardcover whereby hardcover unused in zones nearer that lake can be leg.innalely used in zones further from the lake without a variance. ^ cCfVvWV y A ^ cA'oo^ (if O /' i . .. .../* _P/2-|0r^-TD <SH«?J^iA^J^ ^ C^lTf - ^AV^ /^e'A-Sw.*^^^— /_DT' <^\X>TTH a-T" vs *' s«rrJS.A<iM. .AT" 2s' ST»C-*sr«rri5tr7-i2A^ ... Ar A A^ATTB^ A^A/ cV _______ t—■ • • • *•- ipa^ 1-JZ.._/-^Lo^_*bit> >06'>AAt//A^ »ro C^t^A^T ^TThS’ _(/j|7:irw . .A/AAiA^.c^7AJ ry^.^f^T..T.. . . _.. .. « f "C < S Si• t. c < S c I Vs ‘ ^ c ’ < •* « ■nauuiaiiuuia J f B'A.-r iC- 6trb> A I |OOT HAV/^^ ]92^M-rA^^ <?/0 /kr * -^o iAJe<^T- TO Ir^ein^^ JJl , / 9 r r / w