Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION <br /> Monday,July 20,2020 <br /> 6:00 o'clock p.m. <br /> which gets you to 18 feet. Ideally it would be 30 feet,which is the minimum access width requirement. <br /> He felt that number was excessive. He is supporting 18 feet as the absolute minimum in order to get a <br /> driveway to serve a property and still meet the rest of the ordinances. <br /> Gettman commented the Commissioners had a property earlier where the 18 feet was applicable in <br /> between the two marinas. <br /> Barnhart said that the driveway was 7'/2 feet wide and right on the property line. <br /> Gettman asked, if the Commission had the 18 feet set up,why they wouldn't have demanded more rather <br /> than squeezing the 7Y2 feet in. <br /> Barnhart stated the application was not a subdivision so he could not apply that requirement. If the <br /> Applicant had wanted to create the lot,that issue would be raised. <br /> Gettman clarified that if the Commission does not have the 18 feet,they are going to end up with more <br /> situations like that in the future. <br /> Ressler said the application will get in front of the Planning Commission either way. He asked, if there is <br /> a five-foot setback from the property line for the driveway to go, whether that is doing exactly what is <br /> being proposed,which is creating a minimum eight-foot driveway and a five-foot setback. <br /> Barnhart stated the reason it was added in the clause is because it is part of the standards when a <br /> subdivision is looked at.A lot of times there will be a driveway within the setback and they are allowed to <br /> continue as non-conforming and are either replaced or lengthened in-kind. He felt it was necessary to put <br /> something like this in the subdivision code because as a lot is being created,more density is added to an <br /> already confined space. This is an extra layer of standard to review. He noted part of the analysis of the <br /> Planning Commission/City Council is, does the subdivision create a buildable site.Access is part of that. <br /> Gettman asked if there was a minimum frontage. Instead of saying 18 feet, could there be a recommended <br /> minimal frontage. <br /> Barnhart noted"frontage"is a defined term and it is based on the lake if it is a lake yard or the public or <br /> private street for a non-lake yard. The Applicant meets that with the 140 feet. They can taper it down to a <br /> pinprick at an access for a lake lot.There is no minimum in those situations. That is why Staff would like <br /> to provide a minimum at other places. It might be redundant in other areas of code because the five-foot <br /> setback is found in the zoning code also and the width requirement applies to shoreland which is in a <br /> different zoning section. <br /> Gettman said it sounds like a great opportunity but Staff is doing that already. He does not know the <br /> ordinances well enough to say that 18 feet is already stated someplace else. <br /> Barnhart clarified that the particular sentence discussed calls up two different sections in the code. <br /> Bollis stated he feels it is kind of redundant for most of the lots in Orono but that it may make sense to <br /> have it in for the Shoreland Overlay District. He does not know if that term should be used to define <br /> everything; maybe it should be specific to the lake lots. <br /> Page 12 of 19 <br />