A significant portion of the meeting centered around public feedback on proposed zoning ordinance changes. Joy Bzinger, a resident, raised concerns about the proposed zoning classifications, questioning the rationale behind the size requirements for single-family lots. She noted the inconsistency that the R2 zoning classification required larger lot sizes than the R1, which is intended for denser developments. She also challenged the new landscaping standards, particularly the requirement for “overstory trees” on private lots, arguing for more flexibility to allow ornamental trees due to space constraints.

Another resident, Jeff Gi, echoed these concerns, emphasizing the potential negative impact of reduced lot sizes on community resources and character. Gi argued against the proposed reduction of R1 lot sizes to as low as 10,000 square feet, citing concerns about increased density that could strain emergency services, exacerbate traffic, and alter the unique character of Oronoco. He suggested that the commission maintain clear distinctions within single-family zoning classifications to preserve the community’s identity.

The commission members acknowledged the variety of feedback received, including an anonymous letter that aligned with Bzinger’s concerns about the financial burden of large trees. They revisited the topic of lot sizes, particularly discussing a proposal to maintain a minimum of 10,000 square feet. A compromise was suggested, involving a “step down” buffer for new developments, which would require new construction near larger existing lots to adhere to a transitional zoning approach.

Deliberations continued on the appropriate minimum lot size for the R1 zone. A motion was eventually made to increase the minimum lot size to 12,000 square feet, with some members advocating for even larger sizes, such as 14,000 or 15,000 square feet. The debate acknowledged that these changes could effectively create a new zoning classification, given the substantial differences in lot size requirements. The commission underscored the importance of maintaining Oronoco’s appeal and avoiding fragmentation of the community’s character.

Tree planting requirements also featured prominently in the discussions. Concerns were raised about the costs associated with planting overstory trees, with some members suggesting more flexibility to include ornamental or coniferous trees. The need for reforesting the community and providing shade was balanced against financial considerations, with clarifications made regarding the quantity of trees required. Members agreed that the language of the regulations should be adjusted to ensure clarity and accommodate various tree types.

The commission also tackled the topic of the R2 zoning classification, particularly the minimum lot sizes for single-family and multifamily homes. A proposal was made to decrease the minimum lot size for single-family homes in the R2 zone to 10,000 square feet while maintaining 14,000 square feet for multifamily units. This prompted a review of the rationale behind existing size distinctions, though specific details from previous discussions were not recalled.

Sidewalk requirements also came under scrutiny, with no changes proposed to the existing ordinance, which mandates sidewalks for new subdivisions on one side of the street. Concerns were expressed about past practices where large lots with septic fields precluded sidewalk installation, complicating retrofitting efforts.

The meeting also addressed the Developmental Flex (DF) zoning district, debating whether to retain or remove this section. While some members feared it could allow developers to bypass regular checks and balances, it was countered that the DF zone simplifies existing processes without creating new allowances for development.

Further discussions highlighted the importance of ensuring city staff and council members are well-versed in development processes, particularly as new staff join. Training related to the new zoning changes and the DF zone was mentioned as part of a contract with city staff, aimed at enhancing understanding and implementation of these zoning changes.

To improve communication with residents, the creation of informational packets was suggested. These would address common inquiries and outline processes for obtaining permits for projects like home renovations.