08-13-2020 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, June 15, 2020 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 2 of 12 Barnhart said this requires it in situation A or B; situation C allows the Council to waive it, which would likely be part of a sketch plan. He stated there is not a mechanism to require it if one of the triggers are not met. If that is important to the Planning Commission and/or City Council, the trigger can be lowered or provide an avenue where, if it is a defined unique feature, it would be worked into the area. He reiterated that A and B establish triggers, and C allows the Council to waive those in situations where a Conservation Design Plan does not necessarily add to the subdivision review process. He noted that anything that is added as a requirement translates to cost for the developer and end-users, and the Comp Plan tried to address/identify ways to avoid unnecessary expenses if possible. Some situations, such as those listed, translate to a requirement; the other ones probably do not. He noted that Erickson commented on the cul-de-sac question, and he would look into that more. One line suggests cul-de-sacs are prohibited; the next line says if you have a dead-end street, you have to have a cul-de-sac. There is a distinction. There is the temporary dead-end street and eventually the road will continue, or a permanent dead-end street or permanent cul-de-sac. Staff will clarify that in the future drafts. He does not recommend adopting the minor subdivisions changes, but it could be revisited over the next couple of years. He noted there is an appeal process in the code. The Planning Commission is the body to listen to appeals from the zoning ordinance; he recommends the Planning Commission also be the appeal process for the subdivision code. Gettman noted the conservation design goes hand-in-hand with the park requirements. He said Barnhart mentioned looking at the Plymouth model and asked if Barnhart was able to expand on that. Barnhart stated the comment about the Plymouth model was made by the City Attorney. There is going to be a point in the near future where the City will need to review/revise the mechanism for how park dedication is extracted, as it should be reviewed every 7-10 years. He is not proposing changes to park dedication at this stage. That requires quite a bit of study. In addition, he asked if the City Council/Planning Commission wished to define appropriate street tree types, that some cities have a list of allowable trees they want planted in their right-of-way. He noted if the Planning Commission has a strong opinion either way, he would be happy to incorporate that into the document. Bollis noted, in Section 82-83, the 120-day language is being removed. He is curious what that reverts to. Barnhart said it is the City Attorney’s opinion that if it is in the State statute, the City does not need to restate it. The City has 120 days to act on a preliminary plat application. For a final plat, it is 60 days; the final plat can be extended another 60 days by notice before the first 60 days expires. That is written in the State statue and the City is purposely not restating what the State statute says. Bollis said, in Section 82-84, Line 623, it is saying the City Administrator shall classify the proposed subdivision in accordance with Section 82-15 but that the City is doing away with the classification. Barnhart thanked Bollis for catching the error. Bollis asked, in Section 82-112, Line 727, Item c, if he was correct that that is currently not in the code but is additional. Barnhart stated if the information is underlined, it is not included in the code.