Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION <br /> Monday,July 20,2020 <br /> 6:00 o'clock p.m. <br /> Kirchner and Gettman said they would support adding the language regarding 18 feet. <br /> McCutcheon stated for him it is a finite number. When a subdivision is made,there is a checklist to go by. <br /> When a number is exceeded,there needs to be a threshold so an alarm is sounded. He likes that the <br /> Planning Commission is having something,but now they are splitting hairs. It would be nice to point to <br /> one minimum setback. Since the Planning Commission doesn't have that,he would be fine with adding <br /> the 18 feet language. <br /> Barnhart summarized the results: Ressler and Bollis oppose the change and the other Commissioners <br /> support the addition which he would call out as a discussion topic for the Council. <br /> Ressler noted number 6 discusses sketch plans on neighboring property owned or anticipated to be owned <br /> by a property owner. There was some dialogue about the intent and practicality of the requirement. The <br /> intent of the language is to review a development comprehensively and not create issues down the road. <br /> The intent is preserved later in the code. The City can require the road to extend to the property line,and <br /> the language in the sketch plan section can be deleted. He asked Barnhart if it was correct that if the <br /> Commission is deliberating a subdivision,the Commission wants to get a good grasp as to what the entire <br /> plan is going to be for developing,whether it is applied for now or later. <br /> Barnhart said Ressler was correct. He said it could be a goal but not necessarily a requirement. <br /> Ressler stated the Commission could request that just like currently. <br /> Barnhart agreed and suggested the Planning Commission do it before they saw the sketch plan. <br /> Ressler said it sounds like Barnhart is willing to remove the language, knowing the Planning Commission <br /> could request it at the time of application. <br /> Barnhart stated if the Commission wants to be able to ask for it later, he would remove anything that says <br /> "shall"or"should"and draft the ordinance to say that the Planning Commission"may"require the <br /> subdivider to prepare a sketch of the remainder of the property. He indicated it is similar to what was <br /> done with Baldur Park, where the property owner was looking to subdivide the first couple of portions of <br /> the property but also retain ownership of the balance of the property. They are trying to figure out how the <br /> road works and how the lots will lay out. Staff has not been successful in requiring them to do that yet, <br /> but ultimately Staff wants to see how it will all work together. <br /> Bollis asked if it was multiple properties or one property. <br /> Barnhart said there are several parcels. <br /> Ressler stated his perspective is looking at how it is done now and looking at how it would be done <br /> afterwards. Requiring it is difficult because the owner could change their mind on their intent the day <br /> after the permit is issued and the City would not have much recourse. He does not know if the City can <br /> change what the intent is whether the language is in there or not. He thinks the Planning Commission <br /> could ask them as they do now, as far as asking what their intent is, but he does not think it gives the <br /> Commission any more clarity than currently. <br /> Page 14 of 19 <br />