My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
01-06-2014 Council Packet Special Meeting
Orono
>
City Council
>
1950-2024
>
2010-2019
>
2014
>
01-06-2014 Council Packet Special Meeting
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
11/15/2019 10:39:15 AM
Creation date
5/30/2019 7:53:41 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
106
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).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
Item #01- Special Council Meeting - 01106114 <br />File #13-3638 & 13-3639 [Total Pages 99] <br />MINUTES OF THE <br />ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING <br />Tuesday, November 12, 2013 <br />7:00 o'clock p.m. <br />(8. #13-3638 and 13-3639 SOURCE LAND CAPITAL, LLC (PAT FILLER) OIBIO GRANT <br />WENKSTERN (LAKEVIEW GOLF), 405 NORTHARM DRIVE, COMPREHENSIVE PLAN <br />AMENDMENT AND SKETCH PLAN RE VIEW, Continued) <br />Grittman stated from a Comprehensive Plan standpoint, the surrounding land uses are predominantly rural <br />residential. The current zoning is RR -1B, which allows rural residential development at one dwelling unit <br />per two acres of dry land. The roadways in this area are definite issues and are factors that any developer <br />would have to consider. Access to the neighboring roads and North Arm Drive, which currently serves <br />the golf course, will need to be addressed. Improvements to the roadways, if deemed necessary, would be <br />studied as part of the preliminary plat submission. <br />Grittman noted retaining the current open space designation is not economically viable for the private <br />land owner. Grittman stated the City cannot compel a single property owner to provide public space out <br />of the scope that other individual property owners contribute to that cause. <br />Grittman stated the sketch plan review from the City's perspective is to identify issues or objectives and is <br />not an approval or denial. A sketch plan review is the City's opportunity to explain to the developers <br />what the City would like to see happen with the property. Since the information is still preliminary at this <br />point, the comments are intended to help all parties understand the requirements for a full plat design and <br />give everyone an understanding of what the base line rules are going to be. <br />As it relates to the overall view of the sketch plan, the proposal is based on 118 acres of dry buildable <br />land. The proposal consists of two possible alternative layouts, with one of those offered as the preferred <br />alternative for the property. The second option is a layout that is based on the allowable density under the <br />proposed amendment and follows the current zoning. The second option is based on preliminary site data <br />and the lot count would need to be verified. <br />Grittman indicated the first plan illustrates an alternative that would utilize the threshold unit count under <br />the zoning and land use plan and then cluster those lots to the higher portions of the site. By reducing the <br />lot sizes and clustering the as shown in the plan, the applicants would propose to retain a significant <br />portion of the site for open space. Much of this preservation area is shown around the perimeter of the <br />site. <br />The layout proposed in Option 1 is a traditional layout with full development of the property except for <br />the wetlands. There would be approximately 6,500 lineal feet of roadway. There are four road <br />connections to existing roadways in the sketch which include two roadways to North Arm Drive and two <br />road connections to West Branch that are shown to provide access to the lots within the project. There are <br />four lots with direct access to the existing street, with the remaining lots having access to the new street <br />within the development. There are no other significant amenities as part of the development that are <br />outlined in the sketch plan. <br />Subject to all the data that would need to be provided as part of a plat application, the question is whether <br />the City is more inclined to a PRD or the traditional two acre zoning. The Planning Commission's <br />recommendations were to follow the PRD approach and retain the common open space. The Planning <br />Commission also commented on how to address traffic, pedestrian issues, stormwater management issues, <br />and septic suitability on the smaller lots. <br />Page 12 of 36 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.