06-27-2016 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, June 13, 2016 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 10 of 14 12. #16-3815 HALF-STORY DEFINITION/MASSING REGULATION (continued) Another option considered would remove the 15 percent limitation and establish a floor area ratio or FAR limitation for properties under two acres. The FAR, combined with setbacks, maximum defined height and hardcover regulations, may accomplish the City’s massing goals as well as provide a more user friendly regulation with flexibility. The City’s current 2-1/2 story height limit and 15 percent structural coverage limit result in the functional equivalent of a FAR of 0.39. If the Council’s goal is to increase flexibility for design and eliminate the cumbersome half-story calculation, Staff suggests the establishment of a FAR of 0.39 for lots 10,000 square feet in area up to 2.0 acres. For lots under 10,000 square feet, Staff would recommend keeping the 15 percent structural coverage limit. The Planning Commission reviewed both options at their May meeting and ultimately felt that Option 1 met the City’s goals, including those related to clarifying the permitting process. The minutes from those minutes were included in the Council’s packet. The Planning Commission voted 6-0 to recommend Option 1. The Council should discuss the options and consider directing Staff to draft an ordinance reflecting the Council’s decision on massing regulation. Printup stated he likes the flexibility that Option 2 offers, but that he is questioning whether it would simply be replacing one thing with something that is just as confusing. Printup requested Staff talk a little bit about the differences between Options 1 and 2. Curtis stated Option 1 is simply just taking off the limitation to make the third level of the house a half story, which would still allow some variety from a design standpoint, but that Staff believes there would still be homes with three stories being proposed. Option 2, the FAR option, does allow a builder or a homeowner to decide whether they want a bigger main floor with a smaller upstairs or a rambler. Curtis stated keeping the FAR tied to the structural coverage would likely result in fewer taller houses on the smaller lots since it would allow for a bigger ground floor. Curtis stated there would be the opportunity to have the same amount of structure but the massing would come down. Walsh stated Option 2 would also allow that. Curtis stated Option 2 would allow someone to use their 1,500 square feet however it fits within the building envelop. Walsh stated both options would remove the number of stories limitation but would keep the height limitation of 30 feet, which simplifies it somewhat. Walsh stated he would like to see the 15 percent go away in both of those options and instead implement something where they are allowed so much in hardcover. Walsh stated that would allow the homeowner to decide how much hardcover they want for a driveway or for a deck or for their house. Walsh stated hardcover has always been the big issue and that he sees the 15 percent structural limitation and the FAR as a non-issue. Walsh stated there would still be a height limit and a hardcover limit and the builder could work within those parameters, which would give more flexibility to the builders.