Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION <br /> Monday,June 15,2020 <br /> 6:00 o'clock p.m. <br /> Libby said he tends to agree with the other Commissioners, in particular Erickson's observation of the <br /> quickly narrowing triangular lot to the lakeside. Unless there is something that would be egregious to its <br /> eventual decision by the Council,he is also in favor of approving the variance. <br /> Gettman stated he is in favor of the proposal for all of the reasons stated. <br /> Ressler said with Orono being so heavy with lakeshore property, pie-shaped lots are almost textbook <br /> situations for a lot of the applications. He thinks this is not as unique per some of the other applications; <br /> they have approved them under similar circumstances.As noted,they always like to see the improvement <br /> of conditions which has been demonstrated in the application. He supports the application. <br /> Bollis moved,Kirchner seconded,to approve LA20-000039 John& Sherry Gorman,3585 <br /> Frederick Street,Variance.Roll Call Vote: Ayes 6 (Libby,Erickson,Bollis,Kirchner,Gettman, <br /> Ressler),Nays 0. <br /> 3. LA19-000065 CITY OF ORONO,TEXT AMENDMENT: SUBDIVISIONS,6:50 P.M.- <br /> 7:56 P.M. <br /> Barnhart noted this is the first review of the subdivision code. Staff and the City Attorney have reviewed <br /> the subdivision code the last 5-6 months to make the ordinance easy to understand and apply for the users <br /> as they look to subdivide their property. He stated that subdivision is the act of creating a new lot. A plat <br /> is the document that shows that new lot. People often use the terms interchangeably, so the modification <br /> will try to correct that issue. State statute identifies what a subdivision is, so Staff looks at what those are <br /> and provides a review process for those types of scenarios. There are definitions in the zoning ordinance <br /> and the subdivision ordinance,which are both part of City Code. They don't always match, which is <br /> maddening for both Staff and the public. Staff looked to combine those where they could. <br /> State statute talks about the Community Management Plan or the Comprehensive Plan. When the Comp <br /> Plan was approved last year,they created and identified a Community Management Plan, so a definition <br /> was created in the code which links the Community Management Plan which, in effect, is a <br /> Comprehensive Plan; and they made it link to their subdivision code. <br /> He said they removed the classification of subdivisions. The Class 1, 2, 3 designations were based on if <br /> there were any public or private improvements. The vast majority were Class 3.Now there is one <br /> classification and one process. He noted that State statute allows a minor subdivision process,where you <br /> are creating four or less lots and no public improvements, and it is a simpler process to get a subdivision <br /> improved. In those situations,the Planning Commission meeting is skipped and it goes straight to the <br /> Council for review. He does not recommend doing that because most of our subdivisions are four or less <br /> lots and would fall within that criteria. Also, some of the 1-2 lot subdivisions create a considerable <br /> amount of public interest, and he would prefer to keep that at the Planning Commission level for the <br /> public hearing. He is open for comments on that issue. <br /> This draft requires all subdivisions to be done as part of a plat,trying to avoid a metes-and-bounds <br /> description which creates challenges down the line for the future owner and the City if there are any <br /> modifications to the property line or any easements. It may not pay dividends immediately but will do so <br /> going down the road. The draft also adjusts the security for plat improvements. If someone has a <br /> subdivision and is required to build a road or do a stormwater management plan,they incur cost. <br /> Currently,the security requirement is 150%of the improvement cost; Staff is recommending it drop <br /> down to 125%,which is more in line with industry requirements. <br /> Staff has a proposed removal of the different requirements for non-residential subdivisions. 99.9%of the <br /> subdivisions are for residential. He also pointed out the code prohibits flag lots but does not define what a <br /> Page 7 of 19 <br />