Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION <br /> Monday,July 20,2020 <br /> 6:00 o'clock p.m. <br /> Kirchner said he is generally in support of keeping it as-is, with an 18-foot minimum. He asked Barnhart <br /> if there were any concerns with utility easements, etc.He stated he has power lines on one side of his <br /> driveway. If it was reduced beyond 18 feet, could someone potentially have a driveway over a utility <br /> right-of-way and the utility company comes to service something underground and all of a sudden <br /> someone's driveway is torn up. <br /> Barnhart stated the new subdivisions will include a five-foot drainage and utility easement along the side <br /> property lines and ten feet along the front and the rear. The power pole example in a new lot that is <br /> created will be in that setback but also in an easement. Staff does not have worries from an encroachment. <br /> Kircher asked, if it was less than 18 feet,could there be encroachment issues potentially. <br /> Barnhart said there could potentially be issues. If there was not a minimum requirement in place in a <br /> subdivision and a new lot was created,there would be a five-foot drainage and utility easement on the <br /> side property lines and the minimal driveway may encroach into the easement. <br /> Libby asked Barnhart whether it would be most intrinsic where developers are trying to carve out as many <br /> lots as they can and they end up with a number of pie-shaped alignments so they can squeeze one more lot <br /> in. He has seen the pie-shape alignment and assumed that is what Staff is trying to avoid,where it can be <br /> narrowed down to way less than 18 feet. <br /> Barnhart agreed that that is where it will be seen. They will have the minimum width at the building <br /> setback line or at the lake and then they will "pie"the lot away from that. It does not happen all the time, <br /> but it happened enough that he felt the issue should be corrected. <br /> Libby commented that he would support adding the minimum of 18 feet. <br /> Ressler stated it is already kind of covered with the minimum setback from the property line of five feet, <br /> the minimum driveway size of eight feet. He is okay with not having the language included. He noted <br /> Libby is for it; Bollis is for it in lake yard situations. <br /> Bollis said he thinks it makes more sense if the Commission talks about this applying in two different <br /> zones for two different reasons because they are measured differently. One is measured from the lake; one <br /> is measured from the road. <br /> Ressler stated it is specifically minimum frontage on a street, as he reads it. <br /> Barnhart said lake yards are measured at the building setback line,which could be 30, 50, or 100 feet <br /> back. Staff sees it in subdivisions with a cul-de-sac, where the minimum width at the cul-de-sac boundary <br /> is narrow because it pies out to get to the building setback. They have been able to avoid it in recent <br /> subdivisions. It is another tool he can use to say there needs to be at least 18 feet at the property line. <br /> Ressler asked, since it is just involving a minimum frontage on a street, if Bollis was for, opposed, or <br /> something in between. <br /> Bollis said he is opposed to it; he feels like it is covered with the other setbacks in the code. <br /> Ressler stated Libby is for keeping the language; Bollis and himself are opposed to adding the language. <br /> Page 13 of 19 <br />