Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION <br /> Monday,July 20,2020 <br /> 6:00 o'clock p.m. <br /> Ressler stated Barnhart made a valid point that,when revoking a CO,the affected party would be the <br /> person trying to inhabit the property and not the subdivider. <br /> Ressler referenced number 7, minimum frontage on a street in the event of subdivision. He noted no <br /> changes were made and Staff recommends there be a minimum, especially when lot width is measured by <br /> the building setback line 30, 50, and 100 feet in some non-lakeshore districts,or at the lakeshore and 75 <br /> feet back in lake lots. The 18 feet proposed is the minimum to allow for an eight-foot driveway and five <br /> feet for utilities, snow storage, etc., on either side. He said there was discussion about how there might be <br /> situations where the snow removal/storage or sanitation can be relocated to other areas. <br /> Barnhart noted Bollis had a comment against the proposed addition by Staff. There is an argument that <br /> Staff has managed successfully for the last 40 years without it and the true width is measured. Staff added <br /> it because it was seen as an issue that comes up occasionally and they know they will see it as a problem, <br /> whether it is one,two, or seven years down the line, and they cannot do anything to stop it. The clause <br /> attempts to solve the problem. He indicated 3-4 of the proposed lot splits had this kind of configuration in <br /> the last five years. When he sees problems seven years in advance,he tries to solve them. His argument is <br /> that this is an opportunity to solve it. He would be fine if the Commissioners did not want to include the <br /> language, but Staff is addressing a concern that comes up occasionally. <br /> Ressler said he was surprised when Barnhart said in the last five years it has come up 3-4 times, that there <br /> was an application that was not meeting these widths and would create a problem down the road. <br /> Barnhart stated that there were 3-4 times as he recalled. <br /> Bollis asked, in the times Barnhart has seen it, if it applied to lakeshore lots or inland lots. <br /> Barnhart said it was evenly split.Most of their work is splitting of larger parcels. He hears, "I can almost <br /> fit a second lot"if someone does things creatively or logic is put to the side. He commented that it does <br /> not make sense for him to not say anything,because a problem will be created down the road. <br /> Ressler asked if every proposed subdivision would be going in front of the Planning Commission and <br /> they can deliberate whether there is a reasonable amount of area for snow removable or ask the developer <br /> what their plan is for sanitation, etc., and then the Commission can rule on the development based on the <br /> Applicant's reasonable answer to that. <br /> Barnhart said all of the subdivisions will go to the Planning Commission the way it is written. If someone <br /> is creating a parcel,they will go through the Planning Commission and City Council. However,the <br /> Commissioners cannot say a subdivision is not going to work because it does not look right;they need <br /> something in writing of why, which is where the clause comes in. <br /> Gettman commented that, as the Planning Commission sees more and more subdivisions for lots that are <br /> not really subdividable, Barnhart and Staff are recommending giving the Commissioners ammunition to <br /> vote against, which is the language, rather than scratching their heads and trying to figure out how to <br /> make something work. <br /> Barnhart stated the 18 feet number is not widely supported by Staff. That is what he recommended <br /> because that is the minimum based on the City's ordinances today. A driveway needs to be five feet from <br /> a property line on either side, which is ten feet; the minimum width of a driveway in the 0-75 is eight feet, <br /> Page 11 of 19 <br />