08-24-2020 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Thursday, August 13, 2020 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 3 of 8 Crosby asked where Commissioner Bollis had issues. Barnhart replied there were a couple of areas Bollis had noted, one was the definition of cul-de-sac, which is Line 57 of the document onscreen. Barnhart is proposing to add the word “circular turnaround,” noting that anything underlined in the document is a proposed addition and anything with a strikethrough is a proposed removal. The definition of cul-de-sac as it reads now is “an appropriate terminus for the safe and convenient reversal of traffic movement.” Barnhart would like to add “circular turnaround” as that has been consistent with the Council policy over the last 3-4 years and the Council has discussed with developers what an appropriate turnaround should be when the Fire Code allows a hammerhead and the Council has wanted a circular turnaround. This does not mean that the Council cannot grant a waiver in the future if the need arises. Walsh said that is the big issue because with all of the developments the Council has looked at they’ve always said they’re starting with a cul-de-sac, and unless there is a reason they cannot put in a cul-de-sac or if there isn’t enough room, then they will talk about something else. Walsh noted that when Bollis was trying to do his development, he wanted a hammerhead and the Council said no there must be a circular driveway for buses, delivery vans, fire vehicles, etcetera. Walsh said a circular turnaround is the best thing to have if possible and he thinks that is a good starting place so people know and don’t get a strange idea that they can put anything else they want because it says an “appropriate turnaround.” Crosby asked if the word “hammerhead” and a description of the word is in the document. Barnhart said no, it is only referenced in the Fire Code, and that is where some of the issue comes in, determining what is appropriate and who determines it’s appropriate. Walsh said it helps to have a definition in place for a developer; then Staff is able to say this is what the Council wants, and there is a starting point so it forces the developer to work with that standard, if possible. He noted it may not always work but from a community standpoint, he thinks that is the best thing to have in the document. Barnhart said another comment that Mr. Bollis raised was Section 82-50 about Consumer Protection which starts on Line 527 of the document, noting they are proposing to remove it. He noted there was quite a bit of discussion at the last Planning Commission meeting regarding this subject; Commissioner Bollis raised it as a concern, then in June the Staff provided some additional information from Attorney Mattick. At that point, Commissioner Gettman heard the new information and still had some issues and concerns with it. Barnhart noted in his twenty years of planning service, he’s never used this type of clause, certainly not in Orono. The Planning Commission discussed the challenge that if the purchaser of a property to be subdivided had created some sort of fraud or illegal activity and the City wanted to use this clause against them. He said they run into a timing issue, for example, in year one the purchaser commits the fraud, year two they submit the plat and the City approves it, year three construction starts, year four is perhaps when the first house goes in. In this example, the timing issue might come in when the homes are being built (year four), and that may coincide with the time the fraud might go before the court system. Barnhart said he doesn’t know that this really helps the City in that respect and that is why they are recommending removal. Walsh noted in the end, the Planning Commission voted 6-0 to remove the section, also, once they understood the arguments.