My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
05-15-2017 Planning Commission Packet
Orono
>
Planning Commission
>
2017
>
05-15-2017 Planning Commission Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/6/2018 2:22:29 PM
Creation date
2/6/2018 2:21:34 PM
Metadata
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
248
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br /> Monday,April 17,2017 <br /> 6:30 o'clock p.m. <br /> than a quarter area in blue. A number of them are located in the Navarre area. Barnhart stated in those <br /> areas the zoning is between 1/2 acre, 1 acre,or two acres. The result is a number of nonconforming lots. <br /> The effect on lot owners with nonconforming lots is that a new or expansion of a portion of the structure <br /> within the required setback,including an expansion going up,requires a variance. <br /> To address the issue,some adjustment of the setback is necessary. The Planning Commission should <br /> consider the following options: <br /> Option 1. Create a new zoning district for these neighborhoods,establishing unique lot sizes, <br /> widths,and setbacks. A new zoning district should be introduced cautiously, as the <br /> opportunity for unintended consequences is higher because many sections of the code <br /> unrelated to lot size and width speak specifically to a particular zoning district. Staff <br /> does not recommend establishing new zoning districts at this time. <br /> Option 2. Amend the size,width,and setback requirements for existing zoning districts. This <br /> would apply to all lots within that zoning district and could conceivable yield additional <br /> density through lot splits. <br /> Option 3. Amend yard setbacks in selected districts based on the lot size or width. <br /> Barnhart stated in developing a proposed ordinance, Staff examined 36 different lots chosen at random in <br /> "hot spot"neighborhoods throughout the City The area and lot width were noted and the side yard <br /> setbacks were calculated,either through the survey or by measuring from an aerial photo. <br /> Of the 36 lots,23 exhibited non-conforming setbacks on at least one side,and of these,nine had <br /> nonconforming setbacks on both sides. Of the 32 nonconforming setbacks, 19 had setbacks less than ten <br /> feet. <br /> Staff supports an amendment that prescribes side yard setbacks for nonconforming lots due to width as a <br /> function of the lot width,proposed to be measured at the applicable lot width. <br /> Page 66 of 72 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.