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 7 of 12 turnaround, which is great for the Fire Code, but not necessarily for Staff’s purposes, so he added the word “circular” turnaround. There are requirements in terms of radius and things like that in the code; they have added that. Bollis said he sees that is the Minnesota cul-de-sac definition, but the City has changed it to say “circular turnaround” instead of “appropriate terminal.” Barnhart said City Staff does not want an “approved turnaround,” they want a “circular turnaround.” For an approved turnaround, the Fire Code allows a hammerhead. He stated there are developers who will argue for weeks on what the appropriate turnaround is. Historically, the City has required a circular turnaround; the language codifies that. Kirchner asked if there was a definition of “circular turnaround” as far as the dimensions and things Barnhart was referencing. Barnhart stated if you look for the definition of “cul-de-sac,” you do not see the word “circular,” you see “appropriate terminal.” It could be a circular turnaround; it could be a hammerhead; it could be any number of things. In his experience, what works for the Fire Department, who may need a turnaround once every five years, does not necessarily work for the garbage truck who needs it weekly, or the FedEx truck that uses it almost daily. They put “circular” in the language for those types of users. Kirchner asked if there are specific dimensions outlined somewhere that reference back to what a circular turnaround is, dimension-wise. Barnhart stated the dimensions are in the subdivision code. Bollis said he would be in favor of the language being the State definition, “appropriate terminal.” He feels if the City is making people go through the conservation design process, there is a great argument that a hammerhead or a “Y” is better for the environment than a circular cul-de-sac, and so it should say “appropriate terminal” for that piece of property. Otherwise, there is hardly a point of making Applicants go through all the design process if they are not picking the piece that is appropriate for that property. He does not think a circular turnaround is the answer for every piece of property in Orono. Ressler commented that he remembers that application and being in support of it, but the reason why he was in support was because the code seemed to demonstrate for a larger development than what the Applicant’s subdivision was. He thinks the difficulty is getting this into a box when there are so many variables that can contribute to it. The Planning Commission usually entertains applications as to what does not fit in the box. In particular, the way it is proposed is the safe approach, which is circular, but if the application is for the alternative, then it would come in front of the Planning Commission, if he was not mistaken. He noted he was not giving a position; he was clarifying how it works out in regards to how it is written. Barnhart stated there are standards in the section where it outlines the minimum width and the minimum paved width for roads based on the number of units it serves. Any Applicant or subdivider coming forward could ask for waivers or flexibility from that, just like they do for lot width standards, because if the lot width lined up within a wetland, the lot width measurement is pushed farther back and then it meets the requirement. He noted they did that for the YMCA property a month ago, where the lot width didn’t meet the strict reading of the requirement. The Planning Commission felt comfortable granting flexibility for that type of situation because it was on the cul-de-sac road. Applicants can ask for waivers