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 4 of 8 Barnhart said yes, except he thought Commissioner Gettman did not support removal, as it was a voice vote during discussion and he thought it was a 5-1 vote, but it could have been 6-0. Barnhart noted another area of discussion were the sketch plans for adjacent properties which starts on Line 766. The idea is that if a property owner wants to subdivide, and they’ve also indicated they’re trying to purchase the property next door, the Planning Commission could require the property owner to show a sketch plan of how the roads would line up. The Planning Commission felt that was too much of an overreach so ultimately Staff supported removing it, noting the overall goal is somewhat protected as it’s included in the Code further down where the roads either have to show a through connection with adjacent properties or terminate short of the property line so they can’t be connected. He said as a Staff, they look at whether there are any logical connections with the subdivision to other properties, regardless of who owns it or what the subdivision timetable is. Barnhart gave the example of Orono Preserve, noting there are two roads that dead-end and at the time, the family had no intention of ever developing, but if they do choose to develop one day, the City wanted to have an opportunity for connection. He noted that Staff ultimately removed that potential clause from the Code. Barnhart said another item that the Planning Commission talked about was the minimum frontage on a street, starting on Line 1746. This is a result of some things the Planning Staff has seen over the years, saying if someone has a lake lot, the width of the lot is measured at the lake and at 75 feet back, there is no minimum measurement at the street. He noted there have been some property owners who have tried to exploit that by meeting the requirements at the lake and the 75 foot setback, but have virtually nothing at the street level, therefore requiring an easement to get to the property and is not a good system to create. Walsh said that can be seen with the cul-de-sac lots coming in. Barnhart said yes, that is a good example, noting on the Orono Orchard Road project, they had talked about reducing the width at the building setback line because of the cul-de-sac configuration. Walsh said this is another example of having a good tool in the City’s kit that says this is what is needed for a minimum, but it doesn’t mean that the Council can’t grant a variance if there is a problem. Printup asked if that would prevent some of the odd shaped lot lines that jog all over the place. He noted sometimes in order to adhere as closely as you can with Code you have to move a lot line. Walsh added, especially if someone is trying to maximize the amount of lots on a property, for example, around a cul-de-sac, they will have as many lots as possible and a very skinny section leading to the cul- de-sac because then you get more lots. He said if the City requires 18 feet, they’d have to have a reason to ask what the practical difficulty is for the developer that they can’t have 18 feet or does the developer just want to have more lots to sell. He said they should have in this tool in the Planning Department kit to be able to say what the standards are and the Council can vary from that if there are issues with variances. Crosby asked if there is a minimum spelled out in the Code. Barnhart said there is no minimum, as long as the developer meets the width at the building setback line for non-lake lots, or at the lake and 75 foot setback for lake lots, there is currently no requirement. He noted this would only apply in the subdivision process, as they are not creating a new minimum width for