Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION <br /> Monday,June 15,2020 <br /> 6:00 o'clock p.m. <br /> submit a sketch plan for the remainder. It would be another application for a piece of property they have <br /> no intention of doing anything with. <br /> Barnhart said that was not necessarily the case. He sees it happening one of two ways. Scenario one, <br /> through Staff discussion, it will be noted there is a logical extension of whether it is a stormwater <br /> treatment or a road network that ends at the hard property line and the property owner has indicated their <br /> intention to acquire that property. Staff might advise them to include as a sketch or concept the other <br /> property so Staff can better understand how everything works together. Scenario two,the Planning <br /> Commission,knowing more about a given neighborhood/property than maybe Staff does, may note that it <br /> looks like an opportunity for a larger park or natural environment retention type of scenario,and the <br /> property owner has indicated an interest in purchasing the property. The Planning Commission could say <br /> they really would like to see that portion of it incorporated in the sketch plan and will table action until <br /> they can see that, and move forward from there. <br /> Ressler stated that is what he was thinking of as well. He tries to not table things because it freezes time <br /> for 30 days. The Planning Commission can provide feedback based on the information they have. If the <br /> Applicant wants to provide a sketch plan because they think they can influence the Commission's <br /> feedback, it gives them that choice as well. He thinks the spirit of the language is trying to avoid <br /> unnecessary costs and hassle. In those circumstances, it probably would not be necessary nor required <br /> unless as a voting body the Planning Commission decides it is. <br /> Bollis suggested a tweak to the language so it is not saying they have to actually submit a sketch plan. He <br /> said it could be interpreted that they'd have to submit a separate sketch plan for a piece of property which <br /> would really slow up the application process.He understands it is important if there is a tract of property <br /> someone is trying to subdivide in multiple ways. He understands the intent of it; it is maybe the wording <br /> that he is not okay with. <br /> Barnhart asked if replacing the word"submit"for"prepare"would work. <br /> Bollis said that wording could possibly work. <br /> Barnhart stated, "The Planning Commission may require that the subdivider submit a sketch plan"could <br /> be changed to, "The Planning Commission may require that the subdivider prepare a sketch plan"of the <br /> remainder of the property. He said it is a subtle distinction but he understood Bollis' point.He reiterated <br /> the idea with the sketch is to prepare an idea of what someone is thinking for a reaction from the Planning <br /> Commission and Council. This tells the Applicant to think about the other issues,which he thinks is <br /> reasonable. <br /> Ressler said he thinks the spirit of it makes sense. Hopefully, Staff is there to give guidance as well if they <br /> are approached to give clarification if there is anything unknown. <br /> Kirchner noted, if the ordinances are held 7-10 years before reviewal,there will likely be a change in <br /> some/all of the members of the Planning Commission at some point and does not want to lose the intent <br /> of the Comp Plan in which they are trying to minimize some of the additional costs. He agrees changing <br /> "submit"to"prepare"gives more leniency. He wants to make sure 4-5 years down the road the Planning <br /> Commission is not requiring the information more often than not and causing additional expense for <br /> developers. <br /> Page 11 of 19 <br />