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 4 of 12 Ressler clarified that he meant the City, not just necessarily the Commissioners. Barnhart said it could be misused by Commissioners that try to overreach, but he thinks that is where it is a check-and-balance. If the Planning Commission requires it because of what the Commission is seeing as an application, the Council could ultimately say they do not need that type of information. Libby commented that his reading of the language, having dealt with a number of circumstances like this hands-on, the expression of the intention, as it is stated, is essentially also an expression of intent with the idea that there are so many variables that can happen in these circumstances practically that this leaves it open for the Planning Commission to look at a number of different circumstances in cases. It is not a simple block of lots. He said there was an example recently before the Planning Commission where an Applicant was talking about a similar situation. He has seen it happen so many times that he likes and favors the language, because it gives enough latitude to the Applicant and how they state what it is they are trying to accomplish through the sketch plan, and it gives the Commissioners the ability to have that same sort of flexibility from an advisement and decision-making to advise the Council. He thinks it is appropriate and prudent language. Barnhart stated a sketch plan is looking at a comprehensive idea of what could happen in the area and provides some additional information; the preliminary plat will not include property that you don’t own. Libby said the reason he brought it up and stated it the way he did is because he’s had numerous circumstances where there have been non-buildable outlots that still contributed to the ability to be able to do a subdivision. Ressler noted he appreciates the discussion and thought Barnhart did as well. One thing he likes about the “may” is that it does not make it a requirement and it looks like the discretion falls on the Planning Commission, which allows the Commission to have discussion over the feasibility of it. He appreciates that as well because it becomes a collective vote rather than one discretionary Staff member having to make the decision. Bollis asked, with the way the language is written, if the Planning Commission is expecting the Applicant would submit an entire new process for the additional piece/lot. He reads it that way, that they must submit a sketch plan for the remainder. It would be another application for a piece of property they have no intention of doing anything with. Barnhart said that was not necessarily the case. He sees it happening one of two ways. Scenario one, through Staff discussion, it will be noted there is a logical extension of whether it is a stormwater treatment or a road network that ends at the hard property line and the property owner has indicated their intention to acquire that property. Staff might advise them to include as a sketch or concept the other property so Staff can better understand how everything works together. Scenario two, the Planning Commission, knowing more about a given neighborhood/property than maybe Staff does, may note that it looks like an opportunity for a larger park or natural environment retention type of scenario, and the property owner has indicated an interest in purchasing the property. The Planning Commission could say they really would like to see that portion of it incorporated in the sketch plan and will table action until they can see that, and move forward from there. Ressler stated that is what he was thinking of as well. He tries to not table things because it freezes time for 30 days. The Planning Commission can provide feedback based on the information they have. If the