Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Major Street Setbacks topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Plan Commission debates major-street setback amendments; consensus to defer final action pending related code changes
Summary
City of Marshfield Plan Commission members reviewed a proposed change to Chapter 18 that would reclassify major streets and add a 10-foot additional setback for certain streets, but commissioners favored delaying a final vote until related nonconforming-property language is prepared.
City of Marshfield Plan Commission members reviewed a proposed municipal code amendment that would redefine "major streets" in Chapter 18 of the zoning ordinance and add additional setback requirements measured as the base zoning setback plus 10 feet for certain collectors and minor arterials.
Bryce Henbrook, planner, said the proposal stems from an effort to update definitions tied to the 2007 comprehensive plan and to prepare for potential future right-of-way expansion. "If we just had a 10 foot additional setback to the base zoning district setback, we'd be able to accomplish that... without creating a nonconforming setback," Henbrook said. He also noted the Downtown Mixed Use (DMU) and Urban Mixed Use (UMU) districts would be excluded from the requirement.
Henbrook described an administrative exemption: "The zoning administrator may determine that a property is exempt from the major street setback requirement if the public right of way adjacent to the property meets or exceeds the minimum right of way standard specified in the subdivision code," meaning owners already adjacent to adequate right-of-way could seek a waiver.
Commissioners asked whether the change would immediately render any homes legally nonconforming; Henbrook said staff had not individually checked every affected parcel and that the amendment was intended mainly for new development. He referenced a potential future code change to allow properties made nonconforming by city-acquired right-of-way to be certified as legally conforming rather than forced into variance processes.
Commissioners expressed concern about unintended consequences and whether to wait until related sections (nonconforming property language) are ready. Several commissioners endorsed postponing or packaging the setback amendment with the follow-up nonconforming-code rewrite. Henbrook said there was no urgency to adopt the change: "There is no urgency," he told the commission. He also said the city only sees about one or two right-of-way dedications a year and that the proposal would not mean the city would proactively acquire right-of-way in most cases.
No formal motion or vote was taken. The commission signaled a consensus to delay final action so staff can prepare additional language and potentially bundle amendments for future review and public hearing.
