Lowell planning commission considers raising Main Street transitional setback to 20 feet

The Lowell Planning Commission spent its meeting reviewing Article 8 of the Land Development Ordinance, focusing on minimum lot sizes and whether the Main Street Transitional (RMST) front setback should increase from 12 to 20 feet.

Commissioners and planning staff discussed recent infill projects on Bridge and Groves streets that used minimum RMST dimensions and produced houses close to the roadway. Planning staff told the commission they had surveyed nearby jurisdictions and read current Lowell figures aloud: RMST front setbacks are 12 feet, while SFR3 and SFR4 front setbacks are 20 feet; RMST lot width is about 42 feet compared with 60 feet (SFR3) and 50 feet (SFR4).

"We pulled from three surrounding towns to get an idea what their minimum lot requirements are," a planning staff member said while presenting comparisons and maps. Commissioners said the core question was whether the small RMST front setback produced acceptable results near main thoroughfares or whether a larger setback would better preserve street aesthetics.

Several commissioners voiced support for a 20-foot front setback on thoroughfares. One commissioner said simply, "I say 20," as a shorthand for shifting RMST frontage to the same standard used in adjacent residential districts. Opponents cautioned that increasing the setback could reduce the number of units a parcel can accommodate and asked staff to verify whether existing or proposed lots would become unbuildable.

Dr. David Williams, a certified planner who identified himself as representing Ability Development Group and as a professor at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte, advised the commission to first define the desired density and then align setbacks and lot-width standards to meet that vision. "Once you determine what your density wants to be, everything else falls into place," Dr. Williams said, urging the commission to examine rear and side setbacks in tandem with any front-setback change.

To test the practical impact, staff read recorded sizes for four recently developed parcels in the Bridge/Groves area: 5,953 sq ft; 6,829 sq ft; 6,469 sq ft; and 6,708 sq ft. Planning staff noted only one parcel was very close to the 5,000-sq-ft minimum and that a 20-foot front setback would likely reduce but not necessarily eliminate buildability on the others. "If we moved it to 20 feet I think we'd accomplish what's being asked," a commissioner said after staff presented frontage widths and potential effects on unit counts.

The commission did not adopt any ordinance language at the meeting. Instead, members asked planning staff (Mr. Cobb) to model the impact of increasing the RMST front setback on approximately 50 parcels in the RMST district, distinguishing parcels that front on main thoroughfares from those on side streets, and to return with maps and a recommendation at the next meeting. The commission also handled routine business: it approved the agenda and minutes and adjourned by unanimous vote.

What happens next: staff will analyze how a 12-to-20-foot front-setback change would affect lot buildability and units-per-acre in the RMST area and present mapping and options at the commission's next meeting.