08-13-2020 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

AGENDA ITEM Prepared By: J. Barnhart Reviewed By: DJR Approved By: DJR 1. Purpose. To consider changes to the Subdivision Code, provide staff direction. 2. Background. The comprehensive review of the subdivision code was authorized by the Council in workshop on August 12, 2019. Since then, staff and the City attorney have worked closely together reviewing the subdivision code and identifying areas where changes would clarify, streamline, and adjust our subdivision process to be consistent with State Law, and Council goals. All changes are shown, new text is underlined, and text to be deleted is struck-through. Review comments made by staff, the city attorney, and the Planning Commission are also included in the margins of the draft. 3. Planning Commission Vote and Comment. On June 15, 2020, the Planning Commission held a public hearing. Following the public hearing, the Planning Commission commented on a number of items, ultimately tabling action. On July 20, 2020, the Planning Commission continued discussion, and recommended approval of the ordinance on a 5-1 vote (Bollis voted no, Erickson was absent). The main discussion points are summarized below. The Minutes from the June Planning Commission are attached as exhibit X. The July Minutes were not ready at the time this report was submitted and will be provided later. Over the two meetings, Commissioners discussed the following: a. cul de sac definition/ design (Line 57) Bollis suggested not requiring a circular requirement b. Consumer protection (Section 82-50, lines 527-541). Proposed to be deleted. Bollis originally raised it as an issue in June. In July Bollis was satisfied with the City Attorney’s response, though Gettman did not agree to the change. All other commissioners agreed to remove it. Gettman’s concern could be summarized as how do we protect the consumer in fraudulent transactions as part of the subdivision. c. sketch plans for adjacent property (Lines 766-770). In the code, there is a provision that the City can require the subdivider to prepare a sketch plan when they are the owner of adjacent property or intend to attempt to acquire the property adjacent to that property, with the goal that possible relationships between he proposed subdivision and future subdivisions. The Planning Commission was not comfortable with the intent and felt it may be a bit of an overreach. (It is proposed to be removed.) d. Minimum frontage on a street. (Section 82-253, lines 1751-1752). Staff recommends adding a minimum street frontage to preserve a driveway and setbacks, as lot width is measured at the building setback line, and could taper to Item No.: 14 Date: August 13, 2020 Item Description: LA19-000065 – City of Orono Text Amendment Related to Subdivisions Presenter: Jeremy Barnhart, AICP Community Development Director Agenda Section: Planning Department Report