Laserfiche WebLink
CITY OF ORONO <br /> PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br /> Monday,May 15,2017 <br /> 6:30 o'clock p.m. <br /> Barnhart noted Staff's report identifies four different options. One option is to leave everything as is and <br /> retain the status quo. <br /> A second option is to create a new zoning district. The challenge in that option would be to address both <br /> the larger and smaller lots, which could open up some potential problems in the sense that the City's <br /> ordinances oftentimes reflects specific zoning districts. If a new district is added, it is possible some <br /> items may not be addressed, such as stormwater or hardcover requirements. As a result, Staff is very <br /> cautious about creating a new zoning district. An additional concern with rezoning is that it invariably <br /> will add density. Barnhart noted if adding additional density is a concern,this option is probably not the <br /> way the Planning Commission and/or City Council would like to go. <br /> A third option is to modify the existing zoning district and adjusting the setback requirements in selected <br /> districts. If the setbacks are reduced for the RR-1B zoning district, it would allow some of the lots to be <br /> improved without the need for a variance. Barnhart noted the RR-1B district probably encompasses one- <br /> third of the City, and if the setbacks are reduced on the larger lots, it is likely additional density will also <br /> be added. <br /> The final option is to reduce the width requirement. In the LR-1B zoning district where the lot <br /> requirement is one acre and the lot width is 140 feet, if that lot does not have the 140 feet of required <br /> width,the side yard setback could be equal to 10 percent of the lot width. If the lot is 60 feet wide, 10 <br /> percent of the lot width would be six feet. Staff, however, is proposing a minimum of eight feet,which <br /> reduces it somewhat from the current 10-foot side setback requirement. <br /> Barnhart stated while that is not a major change, Staff is attempting to balance the desires of property <br /> owners to expand their footprint with the desire of their neighbors not to have a house real close to the <br /> property line. <br /> Barnhart stated if the Planning Commission feels the setbacks are an issue,they should consider one of <br /> these options. In addition, language in the draft ordinance amendment states that adjustments to the side <br /> yard setback adjacent to an unimproved street can be made. An example of that is the property located at <br /> 300 Crestview, which is located next to a right-of-way. That property owner had to go through the <br /> process to vacant a segment of the road,which reduced their setback from 30 feet to 10 feet. <br /> Staff is looking to get feedback from the Planning Commission and the public on the different options. <br /> Thiesse asked whether the City is confident that all of the unimproved rights-of-way within the City will <br /> not be developed or whether any areas should be identified as not being included under this ordinance. <br /> Barnhart indicated they could, but his feeling is that the City has already improved the rights-of-way that <br /> it needs. <br /> Thiesse commented as long as the City is comfortable that it has the right-of-way that it needs,he does <br /> not have an issue with that. <br /> Schoenzeit asked how width is measured on a nonrectangular lot. <br /> Page 2 of 23 <br />