07-20-2020 Planning Commission Minutes

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday,July 20,2020 6:00 o'clock p.m. allows for the Applicant to make a case for a non-circular cul-de-sac. If"circular"is defined,there are additions that describe the minimum radius etc. There are other forms of plain circular cul-de-sacs such as an offset, d-shaped,although he does not know if those would fall under"circular"or not. Each one has advantages depending on the property. He said Orono is unique because it does not have just flat land and you can just draw a road with a big bulge on the end of it. He would like to leave some room for flexibility in the code. Ressler noted there have been applications where perhaps it was reasonable to have something in lieu of a circular turnaround that would take up less hardcover.The City would generally like to see a circular turnaround. What the Planning Commission needs to deliberate on is, do they want to have the ability to decide on whether something other than a circular turnaround in certain circumstances is reasonable or do they want to make that the gold standard. Mayor Walsh brought up Crystal Bay, which has a two-acre minimum but 95%of the lots are 1/8 or 1/4 of an acre. People say it should be converted to 1/2 an acre,but then there are people with three acres that would subdivide all their lots.From a positive standpoint, it forces people to come in for a variance to say if it is reasonable or is a practical difficulty, and then it can be changed. When the Planning Commission says someone has to have 18 feet and they only have 17 feet,there is always an option with the reasonable/practical difficulty scenario. In regard to the cul-de-sac, if the City says they really want a circular turnaround from a safety perspective even if the hammerhead meets Fire Code because of buses and other issues,the Applicant can argue the issue. If it makes sense,that is what the Planning Commission/City Council is there for. Sometimes if you give people too many options, it kind of takes the decision-making out of the Planning Commission's hands. It forces the Applicant to talk to the Planning Commission/City Council about it. Some of the language is to keep areas like Crystal Bay or Baldur Park that have minimum lots in control as far as what is going on in those areas. Ressler noted another way to state it is, it opens the Planning Commission up to liability and the Commission can't do anything about it if it is compliant with Fire Code but it doesn't fit the spirit of the proposed development. He said including the circular turnaround language is stating that this is what the City is expecting as a standard, and anything other than that can be heard. Bollis stated the Mayor's comment makes sense and that is what the language is getting to. He asked if the Planning Commission wants to see circular cul-de-sacs, because that is what the Commission is agreeing to if that is how the code will be changed. Gettman noted it would be the opposite,that what the Commission would see is requests that vary from the ordinance, which is the guideline. If the Planning Commission does not want a guideline,the language should be taken out. If the Commission wants the applications to come before them and see whether or not they are appropriate,there needs to be a limitation in the ordinance, which is circular. Ressler said if somebody has a proposed subdivision and they are to the point of a turnaround and the Commission would like them to have a circular turnaround and they say there is nothing in the dialogue that says they can't have a c-shaped or d-shaped cul-de-sac,there is a problem,because the Commission is demanding something that is not in the code. He stated Mayor Walsh made a good comment when he said the City is not saying they won't allow something else, but the City has to see and understand why it would be something other than what the City ideally wants to see. Page 17 of 19