Agenda - Council - 01/14/2025 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

i iE separation from the roadway and/or adjacent properties. He noted that some communities have no setback requirement while others have a five foot, or fence requirement. He believed that there should be some time of setback from the roadway, and perhaps from a sidewalk or trail. Commissioner Burgess commented that he believes it would be helpful to have some kind of setback,within the range of 18 inches to three feet,from the street and sidewalks and trails. Board Member Hagerty stated that he also agrees with a setback, a minimum of 18 inches or two to three feet on all sides of the lawn unless there is a fence. He stated that he likes the idea of havinga sign to notify people of what is going on. He also liked the once-a-- ear maintenance � Yp p g g y requirement. Commissioner Houts stated that she does not like requiring a setback outside of the MUSA lines as that area is rural, but does support a setback for properties within the MUSA. Commissioner Burgess asked if there would be guidance on what the sign should say, or whether the City would create the signs for purchase. r Senior Planner Anderson replied that the City would not provide the signage. He noted that there are standardized signs that people could obtain. He explained that the language is not as important because the intention is just to let the public know that what they are seeing is a naturalized landscape and not a situation where someone just stopped mowing. He noted that some cities only p J pp g Y require signage during the transition period when it does not look great. He stated that he could q �. send out examples of signs that the City uses on its own property. Chair erson Fetterle agreed that the hardest period is that transition period. She asked if the p Y g p p Y should consider a notice, where a letter would go out to the neighborhood after someone is approved. Senior Planner Anderson replied that he has not seen any examples that require notification to r neighbors and would be hesitant to do that. Councilmember woestehoff asked if there was a reason this was drafted as part of the nuisance section rather than the residential landscaping standards. Senior Planner Anderson replied that the draft was added to that section as that is where the nuisance language currently exists for yard vegetation over 8 inches. He noted that the language could be relocated, and a reference could be made to the nuisance section linking those areas. Councilmember woestehoff commented that makes sense, but if there are going to be different standards for different areas,perhaps it should be relocated. Board Member Bernard commented that he would prefer to split the language into different sections, rural versus MUSA. He commented that he abuts City property and does not believe a buffer would be needed, whereas a lot in a more developed area would perhaps appreciate the buffer. Environmental Policy Board/October 21, 2024 Page 3 of 5