Laserfiche WebLink
To: Chair Thiesse and Planning Commission Members <br />Doug Reeder, Interim City Administrator <br />From: Jeremy Barnhart, Community Development Director <br />Date: May 15, 2017 <br />Council <br />Exhibit D <br />17-3925 <br />Subject: #17-3925, City of Orono, Text Amendment Setbacks for small lots <br />Public Hearing <br />Application Summary: The proposed ordinance would impose different setbacks for <br />residential lots, based in part on the lot width. <br />Staff Recommendation: Planning Department Staff recommends adoption of the ordinance as <br />drafted. <br />Background <br />The issue of setbacks for small lots within the city has been on the ordinance review list for <br />several years; for 2017, it ranked as the 5 1h Most important issue. In 2016, the city processed 41 <br />variances of various types; side or street setbacks were included in 19 of them. <br />There are several areas of the community where the development pattern is inconsistent with <br />the zoning district. The attached Exhibit B includes three maps, each labeled individually. Map <br />A shows lots in red that are less than X acre, with clusters of these lots in Y2 acre, 1 acre, and 2 <br />acre zones. Map B shows lots in blue between %and Y2 acre, with clusters of these lots in Y2 <br />acre, 1 acre, and 2 acre zones. Each map includes the zoning legend. The Table below shows <br />the required setbacks associated with lots zoned Y2, 1, and 2 acres. You will note that <br />approximately 95% of the non -conforming lots are within one of these 4 zoning districts. <br />Originally, the intent with the zoning was to encourage lots to combine with neighboring lots to <br />create larger, conforming lots; while this does occasionally occur, it has not been as common as <br />originally hoped. The result is a number of non -conforming lots. The effect on lot owners of <br />non -conforming lots is that a new, or expansion of a portion of the structure within the required <br />setback, including expansion up, requires a variance. <br />Front <br />Side <br />Zoning <br />Lot size <br />yard <br />yard <br />Side street <br />District <br />Neighborhood(s) <br />(acres) <br />Width <br />setback <br />setback <br />setback <br />North Long Lake, <br />LR -1A <br />Crestview <br />2 <br />200 <br />50 <br />30 <br />50 <br />Forest Lake, Kelly Avenue, <br />LR -1B <br />Tonkawa <br />1 <br />140 <br />35 <br />10 <br />35 <br />Casco Point, Navarre, <br />LR -1C <br />Fagerness point <br />0.5 <br />100 <br />30 <br />10 <br />15 <br />RR -1B <br />Dickenson, Briar/ Arbor <br />2 <br />200 <br />50 <br />30 <br />Originally, the intent with the zoning was to encourage lots to combine with neighboring lots to <br />create larger, conforming lots; while this does occasionally occur, it has not been as common as <br />originally hoped. The result is a number of non -conforming lots. The effect on lot owners of <br />non -conforming lots is that a new, or expansion of a portion of the structure within the required <br />setback, including expansion up, requires a variance. <br />