My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
01-18-2022 Planning Commission Minutes
Orono
>
Agendas, Minutes & Packets
>
Planning Commission
>
Minutes
>
2020-2029
>
2022
>
01-18-2022 Planning Commission Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/23/2022 8:32:28 AM
Creation date
2/23/2022 8:32:12 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
11
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION <br /> Tuesday,January 18,2022 <br /> 6:00 o'clock p.m. <br /> the room tonight but also future generations.Mr.Joyce asked if the LLRC were to resubmit a proposal in <br /> the future,would it necessitate another public hearing and similar process? <br /> Vice Chair Ressler replied that is his understanding.As of now,the Planning Commission has not <br /> technically heard a presentation or feedback from Staff on the item. There would be another public <br /> hearing if the Applicant brought the presentation back. <br /> Vice Chair Ressler thanked everyone noting he appreciates their comments and concern on the matter.He <br /> closed the public hearing at 7:06 p.m. <br /> McCutcheon moved,Erickson seconded,to table LA21-000077 PKA,455 East Long Lake Road <br /> (Summit Beach Park),Conditional Use Permit and Text Amendment.VOTE: Ayes 4,Nays 0. <br /> 3. LA21-000074 TEXT AMENDMENT,PARK DEDICATION. <br /> Staff presented a summary packet of information.Barnhart stated when they reviewed the subdivision <br /> code in 2018 it was noted that the park dedication requirements were antiquated and needed to be updated <br /> based on current goals of the community. Staff tweaked some of the ordinance and reviewed the <br /> methodology of how they came up with the park dedication.Park dedication is allowed by State statute <br /> within several parameters.One of the key parameters is that there should be a nexus between what the <br /> City requires as a park dedication and what impact a proposed development has on the park system. Staff <br /> analyzed the number of households and acreage of the park system,then approached it with the idea that <br /> new development should pay for itself,meaning there is an adequate amount of park system for the <br /> community. If one adds more households to the community they should also add more park to the <br /> community to keep things linear.He noted parks and trails would be part of the park dedication <br /> calculation.He showed a draft on screen noting that each new household should provide 0.1 acres of park <br /> (land or cash)at the discretion of the City Council. Staff has drafted an ordinance that takes the current <br /> amount of households,parks,trails,and anticipated growth based on the 2040 Comprehensive Plan from <br /> 2018 and applied it to the subdivision code. He noted they also propose a cap as a parcel with a lot of <br /> density(10-20 units/acre)the cash donation requirement could be more than the cost or value of the <br /> property. Staff proposes a cap based on density. <br /> Erickson asked if Barnhart received his email with comments and proposed adjustments. <br /> Barnhart did incorporate Erickson's comments into the draft that is currently on screen. <br /> Vice Chair Ressler opened the public hearing at 7:24 p.m. <br /> Sonja Lockman, 115 Luce Line Ridge,has a real concern that the money can be used for park <br /> improvement,that the value can be determined simply between the City and the developer when they <br /> have already seen the potential for these bogus public-private partnerships that do not benefit the City or <br /> the residents. She is very concerned that the money can be used to take over a park, such as Lowry <br /> Woods,to buy into an easement to give property to another private entity—which is a mountain biking <br /> group—that would destroy the woods and that is expressly not in line with the nature conservancy of that <br /> woods. She stated"we have been told that the Lowry Woods access is the number one goal for the Park <br /> Commission even though we were told prior that they would not try to get any access for bikes into <br /> Lowry Woods.We have been told that our neighbors have been approached in the past about selling an <br /> easement for people to have access."Ms.Lockman has a very big concern that this is an end-run around <br /> Page 10 of 11 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.