08-13-2020 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

To: Chair Ressler and Planning Commission Members Dustin Rief, City Administrator From: Jeremy Barnhart, AICP Community Development Director Date: July 20, 2020 Subject: #LA19-65, City of Orono Text Amendment Subdivision Ordinance Background In June, the Planning Commission reviewed the proposed subdivision code developed to clarify, streamline, and adjust the subdivision process to be consistent with state law, subdivision patterns and Council goals. All changes are shown. During the review, number of comments were raised by commissioners. Comments with changes not recommended are illustrated in the margins of the draft ordinance, attached as exhibit A. Comments resulting in changes are incorporated into the document. In summary, the Commission discussed the following topics, but voted to table action until the changes discussed could be incorporated. The discussion topics: 1. Does the Council want to have a ‘minor’ (lot splits and subdivisions creating less than 3 new lots) subdivision process that could skip the Planning Commission. (Line 423) Some cities do, though staff is not recommending one for Orono at this time, many of our subdivisions fall under these categories. Commissioners agreed that there should not be a minor subdivision process, at least at this time. 2. Does the Council wish to define appropriate street tree types? (Line 1626) The Commission removed ash and gingko from the list of permissible street trees, but also added a reference to an outside agency for additional options. The Commission suggested the DNR as the resource, because information from the University of Minnesota extension was more readily found, staff proposes using that resource. 3. Defer review of the park dedication formula. The Commission agreed that this is an issue requiring review, but the focus should be on the subdivision process first. 4. Conservation Design. Commissioners agreed with the proposed changes to the triggers, starting on Line 2091. 5. Cul de sac design. Commissioner Bollis was concerned with the circular turnaround in the definition of cul de sac (Line 57). The City of Orono in recent years has consistently required a circular cul de sac, the ordinance codifies that requirement. 6. Sketch plans on neighboring property owned or anticipated to be owned by property owner. Commission Bollis questioned the intent and practicality of this requirement. (Line 725) The intent is to review development comprehensively, and not create issues Application Summary: The City is developing revisions to the subdivision ordinance. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the ordinance as drafted.