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 /> Barnhart noted the chart contained within Staff's report provides some examples of the various lot sizes <br /> and the minimum setbacks based on the draft ordinance. In addition,the proposed language defining how <br /> the side yard setbacks will be measured has been included in Staff's report. <br /> The draft ordinance allows for a nonconforming lot to use 10 percent of their lot width as the setback to a <br /> minimum of eight feet but it could be whatever number the Planning Commission feels appropriate. Of <br /> the 32 nonconforming setbacks,four had setbacks between eight and ten feet. Staff does not recommend <br /> establishing a minimum setback less than seven feet since construction of homes from setback to setback <br /> is an expected consequence. <br /> The proposed minimum will not eliminate variances since some existing homes are less than the <br /> minimum called for in the ordinance. Barnhart stated the challenge is to provide the City with a little <br /> more flexibility with a minimum level of open space preservation. <br /> The Planning Commission should discuss whether a minimum side setback of eight feet in the LR-1B and <br /> LR-1C districts is appropriate given open space and massing control goals and whether the proposed <br /> ordinance adequately addresses the goals of the Planning Commission and City Council. <br /> Barnhart stated relative to the side street setback issue, Staff encounters situations where the side street is <br /> unimproved but still requires a large setback. This often results in the vacation of that segment of the <br /> right-of-way. Staff proposes language that prescribes an alternative setback if the right-of-way is <br /> unimproved to be consistent with the interior side yard setback applicable for that lot. <br /> Thiesse asked if the actuals were existing nonconformities originally or whether they were approved <br /> through the years. <br /> Barnhart indicated he does not know why they built where they did but that some lots are situations where <br /> they were nonconforming,the property owner removed the home,and then met the setbacks a little more <br /> than what they had originally. <br /> Landgraver asked how many of those lots obtained variances. <br /> Page 67 of 72 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.