Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br />ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION <br />Monday, June 15, 2020 <br />6:00 o’clock p.m. <br />_____________________________________________________________________________________ <br /> <br />Page 10 of 12 <br /> <br />Barnhart said there is no minimum currently. He stated this is one of the items that they wanted to correct, <br />because on a lake lot, the City only cares about the width at the lake and 75 feet back. There is no <br />minimum at the street, and there should be a minimum at the street. <br /> <br />Bollis asked if it only pertained to the Shoreland District. <br /> <br />Barnhart stated it is for each lot. Most of them are going to be above that because their width will be <br />measured at the building setback line, but mostly this will be applied in lake lots. <br /> <br />Libby asked if the setback line would be started from the center of the right-of-way roadway or from the <br />edge of the right-of-way roadway. <br />Barnhart said it is at the property line, so usually at the edge of the right-of-way. <br /> <br />Bollis asked if it could be moved to the Shoreland Overlay District. <br /> <br />Barnhart noted he could but he is not amending the zoning code now. He added that this is where it is <br />going to come up, because a new lot will be created in the shoreline, and this is where the City would <br />want it to apply. <br /> <br />Bollis asked about Big Island, where there are platted roads. <br /> <br />Barnhart stated, at Big Island, the minimum lot area is five acres so you are not going to see a lot of those. <br /> <br />Bollis said 18 feet would still be needed onto a roadway. <br /> <br />Barnhart agreed, noting that it would be on a public or private street or access outlot. <br /> <br />Bollis said he is not in favor of adding the language. <br /> <br />Barnhart asked if it would be better if it said “except for the RS zoning district.” <br /> <br />Bollis said if it will only apply on a lake lot, he believed it should be specific to that. He asked why it <br />would be a problem if he wants to access 20 or 50 acres that are not on the lake and have 18 feet of width <br />to do it. <br /> <br />Barnhart asked Bollis what his minimum width would be. <br /> <br />Bollis stated if there was a triangular-shaped lot, it could be 16-18 feet at the street and 50 feet wide at the <br />setback, and he thinks the City is creating an issue. <br /> <br />Barnhart said Bollis is certainly welcome to his comment, but he thinks the City is solving a problem for <br />at least a minimum to get access without encroaching from a setback standpoint or encroaching on the <br />neighboring properties. He said he would include Bollis’ comment, but he thinks it is a good section that <br />should be included in the ordinance as a minimum level of requirement. <br /> <br />Ressler asked if it would be redundant to ask for 18 feet due to setback restrictions and minimum road <br />widths, using the example of eight-foot driveway/five-foot setbacks. He asked whether that would trigger <br />a variance application if it did not meet those.