06-15-2020 Planning Commission Minutes

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday,June 15,2020 6:00 o'clock p.m. flag lot is. Usually a flag lot means the buildable portion of the lot is in the shape of a flag and the flagpole is often the access point. The proposed ordinance defines what a flag lot is. The Conservation Design Plan is required for most subdivisions that are over three acres or have a density of more than one unit per acre. Staff is proposing redefining what the triggers are. If someone is doing a residential subdivision more than five acres in area and guided for urban density or is more than three units an acre, a Conservation Design Plan is needed. He thinks they are more reasonable in terms of impact to the natural environment. They did not change what is involved in a conservation design,just the triggers. He referenced recent subdivisions such as the YMCA property and 690 Brown Road would still trigger a Conservation Design Plan. He noted it would apply to subdivisions that have an impact to the natural environment or are part of the character of a given neighborhood. Many 1-2 lot subdivisions likely would not require a Conservation Design Plan. Ressler asked if this document is amending things so it would not be required but the Planning Commission could still request/require it during deliberations. Barnhart said this requires it in situation A or B; situation C allows the Council to waive it, which would likely be part of a sketch plan. He stated there is not a mechanism to require it if one of the triggers are not met. If that is important to the Planning Commission and/or City Council,the trigger can be lowered or provide an avenue where, if it is a defined unique feature, it would be worked into the area. He reiterated that A and B establish triggers, and C allows the Council to waive those in situations where a Conservation Design Plan does not necessarily add to the subdivision review process. He noted that anything that is added as a requirement translates to cost for the developer and end-users, and the Comp Plan tried to address/identify ways to avoid unnecessary expenses if possible. Some situations, such as those listed,translate to a requirement;the other ones probably do not. He noted that Erickson commented on the cul-de-sac question, and he would look into that more. One line suggests cul-de-sacs are prohibited;the next line says if you have a dead-end street,you have to have a cul-de-sac. There is a distinction. There is the temporary dead-end street and eventually the road will continue, or a permanent dead-end street or permanent cul-de-sac. Staff will clarify that in the future drafts.He does not recommend adopting the minor subdivisions changes, but it could be revisited over the next couple of years. He noted there is an appeal process in the code.The Planning Commission is the body to listen to appeals from the zoning ordinance; he recommends the Planning Commission also be the appeal process for the subdivision code. Gettman noted the conservation design goes hand-in-hand with the park requirements. He said Barnhart mentioned looking at the Plymouth model and asked if Barnhart was able to expand on that. Barnhart stated the comment about the Plymouth model was made by the City Attorney. There is going to be a point in the near future where the City will need to review/revise the mechanism for how park dedication is extracted,as it should be reviewed every 7-10 years. He is not proposing changes to park dedication at this stage. That requires quite a bit of study. In addition, he asked if the City Council/Planning Commission wished to define appropriate street tree types, that some cities have a list of allowable trees they want planted in their right-of-way. He noted if the Planning Commission has a strong opinion either way, he would be happy to incorporate that into the document. Bollis noted, in Section 82-83,the 120-day language is being removed. He is curious what that reverts to. Page 8 of 19