My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
07-20-2020 Planning Commission Minutes
Orono
>
Planning Commission
>
2020
>
07-20-2020 Planning Commission Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/18/2020 8:23:00 AM
Creation date
8/18/2020 8:22:44 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
19
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION <br /> Monday,July 20,2020 <br /> 6:00 o'clock p.m. <br /> Libby noted Kirchner said in a different way what he was referring to, because the sketch plan itself is a <br /> latitude to the Applicant that is not often allowed in the process. Orono offers to the public in general a <br /> very liberal,cost-effective method to bring forward ideas, and for the Commission to ask for that in the <br /> form of a sketch plan is fair, equitable,and reasonable.He likes the idea and thinks it should be put in. <br /> Gettman brought up the situation where an Applicant wants to do a subdivision but does not even show <br /> up. He likes the language because it encourages the owner to put together a plan so the Commission has a <br /> concept even though it is not final and subject to change. <br /> Ressler stated Staff can ask the Applicant for information proactively before it gets to the Planning <br /> Commission whether the language is included or not.That is why he is opposed to adding the language. <br /> Gettman said that as long as Staff is thinking proactively, he is fine with it. He referred to his checklist <br /> comment, where the Staff could say, "Before this is done,we really encourage you to do this."He does <br /> not have a problem if Staff is proactively doing it. <br /> Ressler asked Barnhart to comment,when people go to Staff and are looking for feedback on a proposed <br /> suggestion, on what their feedback is. <br /> Barnhart said Staff asks for as much information as they can possibly get. The rubber meets the road <br /> when he asks for something that costs money or time that they don't want to spend.The language is <br /> written in the section that details what is part of a complete preliminary plat application. By this time <br /> Staff should know what is coming and it gets fleshed out. After the comments he would recommend <br /> striking 6c because Staff at this stage would have already anticipated what those needs are. Referring to <br /> the display, he stated numbers 1-6 are items required to complete a preliminary plat application. 6 is any <br /> additional requirement by himself or the Planning Commission, which is where the rest of the information <br /> can be asked. 6c is an example of the information Staff may ask for. He does not think it is worth the <br /> discussion as far as what is gained. He stated people come forward with a preliminary plat and have other <br /> parcels that they own or they indicate they might be purchasing, Staff is going to make sure the owner has <br /> access to those parcels.The clause that the road continues to the boundary of the property is still in there <br /> and still maintains access, etc. <br /> Ressler clarified Barnhart would like to leave 6 intact but strike 6c because of the redundancy and asked if <br /> everyone was in favor of striking c. He indicated he was seeing a lot of yeses. <br /> Bollis, in regard to number 5,the cul-de-sac design, said the current definition leaves room for a cul-de- <br /> sac that has a different terminal than a circular one. He thinks there are projects in Orono where that <br /> makes sense but there are projects where it does not make sense. He does not think the circle is always the <br /> correct cul-de-sac. In a development around wetland where hardcover is a concern and it is a 2-lot or 3-lot <br /> subdivision and some type of hammerhead could fit,there is 64%less hardcover than a 90-foot circular <br /> one and it still meets State Fire Code. He stated he believes the way it was written allowed for flexibility; <br /> now the Commission is taking the flexibility away and making it all circular. He said hammerheads have <br /> been approved in the City. He thinks for most developments a circular is fine and works, but he would <br /> like to keep the flexibility in the language for unique cases. He noted the Planning Commission debates <br /> over 200 square feet or 1%hardcover for a house that is being built, but the hammerheads is where <br /> hardcover could be saved and still have adequate, safe turnarounds for fire trucks, delivery trucks, etc. He <br /> stated he does not know the correct answer. He feels like maybe the definition could be left alone so it <br /> Page 16 of 19 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.