Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO CITY PLANNING COMMISSION <br /> Monday,October 21,2013 <br /> 6:30 o'clock p.m. <br /> 5. #13-3631 LANDSOURCE,LLC,REPRESENTED BY TODD HOLMERS,3700 NORTHERN <br /> AVENUE, SUBDIVISION,7:30 P.M.—8:09 P.M. <br /> Todd Holmers,Applicant,was present. <br /> Gaffron stated what is before the Planning Commission tonight is a two option revision of what the <br /> Planning Commission reviewed at their September meeting. Initially the applicant was proposing a site <br /> plan that included some back lots,which was problematic in that they did not meet the code standards and <br /> they forced development to occur near the back of the property. <br /> Gaffron indicated the slide on the overhead shows the evolution of the plans that reflect an attempt from <br /> Staff's perspective to normalize the lot lines but it still resulted in back lots with the development of the <br /> north part of the property. The next slide depicts a concept that creates six lots,each of them having <br /> equal width but they also have some issues with the center lot having some land across the wetland, <br /> which really serves no purpose. <br /> Gaffron stated Staff did discuss with the applicant the six lots and it was suggested by the applicant that <br /> they have enough acreage that could support seven lots but the lots would not have enough width to <br /> support the district standards. If the 100-foot width is required,the applicant would only be able to create <br /> four or five lots. <br /> Gaffron stated the next slide illustrates Option 1,which essentially locates all the homes up front but still <br /> has issues with access to the rear. This option also brings up the question of preservation of the northerly <br /> portion of the site. One of the goals that the Planning Commission set for the applicant was to look at <br /> clustering the development to the south and creating a conservation easement over the rear of the property <br /> as much as possible. <br /> Option 2 is what Staff would recommend. This plan proposes approximately two-thirds of the property to <br /> be covered under a conservation easement to the north with individual lots that are approximately 76 feet <br /> wide. The lots range from very small to reasonable sized and range from .18 up to .43 acres. Gaffron <br /> noted this property is located in the LR-1C one-half acre district. <br /> Gaffron noted Option 2 would be a PRD,which would allow the density that is proposed but allows <br /> smaller lot sizes and narrower lot widths. It would be Staff's recommendation that the subdivision be a <br /> PRD. One of the concerns inherent in attempting to locate six houses in here is it will have the <br /> appearance of a row of houses. In this situation,the residents of the neighborhood indicated at the last <br /> meeting that they would prefer the back of the property be preserved and there appeared to be general <br /> approval of the houses being located to the front of the property. The question remains as to whether the <br /> development can occur at the front of the property and yet still avoid the appearance of a row of houses. <br /> The buildable envelope requirements are difficult to meet for the lots at the center of the property due to <br /> the setback from the buffer. Gaffron indicated Lots 4 and 5 will have some challenges in designing a <br /> house that would meet the setbacks. The standards of the RPUD would not be met but the PRD standards <br /> could be varied to allow this type of development. <br /> Gaffron stated another option would be to reduce the number of homes from six to five and allow the <br /> center lots to be combined and allow some different shaped houses. The Planning Commission could <br /> Page 12 of 42 <br />