06-12-2017 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

FILE #17-3925 May 15, 2017 Page 3 of 4 The proposed language: LR -1A. Within the LR -1A zoning district, the side yard setback for lots that are non- conforming as to their width shall be the lessor of 30 feet or equal to 10% of the Lot Width as defined. However, in no case shall the side yard setback be less than 10 feet. I -R-113. Within the LR -1B zoning district, the side yard setback for lots that are non- conforming as to their width shall be the lessor of 10 feet or equal to 10% of the Lot Width as defined. However, in no case shall the side yard setback be less than 8 feet. LR -1C. Within the LR -1C zoning district, the side yard setback for lots that are non- conforming as to their width shall be the lessor of 10 feet or equal to 10% of the Lot Width as defined. However, in no case shall the side yard setback be less than 8 feet. RR -113. Within the RR -113 zoning district, the side yard setback for lots that are non- conforming as to their width shall be the lessor of 30 feet or equal to 10% of the Lot Width as defined. However, in no case shall the side yard setback be less than 10 feet. The draft ordinance provides a minimum of 8 feet setback in zoning districts with less than 2 acre minimum size. Staff has historically encouraged improvement of non -conforming lots to maintain a minimum of 10 feet side yard setbacks. Of the 32 non -conforming setbacks, 4 had setbacks between 8 and 10 feet. 7 lots had setbacks between 7 and 10 feet. Staff does not recommend establishing a minimum setback less than 7 feet; given the value of the lots, construction of homes from setback to setback is an expected consequence. The Planning Commission should discuss whether the minimum of 8 feet is appropriate and beneficial. In the LRAB and LRAC zoning districts (1 and Y2acre zones, respectively), homes could conceivably be 16 feet apart, and in the LR -1A and RRAB (2 acre zones), 20 feet apart. If the objective is to eliminate variances, the objective will not be met unless the minimum setback is drastically reduced. This proposed minimum will not eliminate variances; some existing homes are less than the minimum prescribed above. The challenge is to balance flexibility goals with a minimum level of open space preservation. Relative to the side street setback issue, staff encounters situations where the side street is unimproved, but still stipulates a large setback. Often, this results in the vacation of this segment of the right-of-way (Recall the variance and street vacation associated with 290 Crestview last summer). Staff proposes language that prescribes an alternative setback if the right of way is unimproved, to be consistent with the interior side yard setback applicable for that lot. Public Comments To date, no public comments have been received. Issues for Consideration 1. Is the minimum side setback of 8 feet in the LR -113 and LR -1C districts appropriate given open space and massing control goals? 2. Does the proposed ordinance adequately address the goals of the Planning