01-19-2021 Planning Commission Minutes

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday,January 19,2021 6:00 o'clock p.m. Chair Ressler asked regarding one of the definitions of the cul-de-sac maximum of 1,000 feet,is the measurement that is being used in these plans how the City requires it to be measured or is it linear or straight distance. Barnhart replied the City code does not define how that is measured, so they measured straight line and said yes,they do go through the cul-de-sac bulb and that is the 997 or 1,000 feet depending on how close his cursor can get in the electronic measuring tool they have. He said they asked the Applicant to provide an exhibit where he showed increments of 100 feet to demonstrate where the measurement comes to. He noted the tick marks on screen and counted out 9 marks and pointed out the determination. Kirchner said the measurement that was used is not outlined in City code and asked if the method used to measure in this instance is standard practice across recent developments of cul-de-sacs within the City and how they would have been measured. Barnhart said it is and the only difference he could point out is that they don't do a lot of cul-de-sac bulbs, so that is a relatively unique feature they have looked at. While the distance is regulated by the Code,the method of how that is measured is not so they apply the distance to this type of configuration. If the Planning Commission and City Council had some concern about how that measurement came to be, one remedy is to remove the cul-de-sac bulb. Barnhart asked to comment on the question of Outlot D and the use for that; Staff has some concerns with that being used as a recreational area or a parking area and would not recommend that be a separate use. Perhaps it is an easement for access,but Staff would not support a different use for Outlot D knowing what they know about traffic. They would recommend it be absorbed into Outlot C or something like that. Chair Ressler noted that. He asked regarding the ALS measurement in these plans; is that defined in the City code and is it measured with some degree of misinterpretation, based on the CC's feedback in the public hearing. Barnhart clarified if Chair Ressler is asking is ALS defined and how they measure that. Chair Ressler asked if it is being correctly used in the proposed plat. Barnhart said there is some nuance here that is important to comment on. As proposed,the ALS for lot 5 today,the only neighboring lakeshore property that is improved is 1100 Millston. Therefore,the ALS for lot 5, if lot 5 was platted today, is the distance of 1100 Millston from the lake. Lot 3 comes into play only when that property is developed and that will form one of the two points that ALS is drawn. This drawing or this proposal shows lot 3 as a carryover when they were talking about creating the artificial ALS and the way to provide some expectation for improvements. He noted they have gone away from that and Staff's comment letter to the Applicant suggests that anything labeled ALS—because they do not know what the ALS is upon platting—any reference to ALS today should be relabeled. Barnhart does not want to give a false sense of expectation that this is the ALS for lot 5,as that will change upon platting, as will the ALS for lots 1,2, and 3;those will change upon platting. He does not want to confuse the issue any more than they already have so the line shown between lot 3 of Tanager Estates and points to the east which is 1100 Millston should really be removed. Chair Ressler asked the surveyor,Mr. Gronberg to come up to the podium,and noted during the public hearing there was a question about the bluff setbacks and there seems to be a misunderstanding or disagreement as far as what that is. Page 9 of 28