Laserfiche WebLink
• ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br />MINUTES FOR SEPTEMBER 15,1997 <br />( #2 - #2293 LGA Investment Group - Continued) <br />During the sketch plan review, the Council suggested the rezoning be considered in the context of <br />yielding no more lots than there would be under present zoning. The applicant would need to show <br />how the development would occur in the current zoning without sewer. Gaffron indicated this would <br />be difficult to do. Gaffron said he has concluded that the Van Sloun property under the current <br />zoning would be limited to two lots. The Sollner property, in the MUSA, could be sewered and <br />would be limited to six lots, but more likely five lots due to the topography. The Morgart 10 -acre <br />parcel would be limited to five lots but realistically, it would result in no more than three lots with <br />septic. The east Morgart parcel, which is 4.7 acres, is likely to be divided into three lots. This <br />results in the current zoning allowing for a maximum of 17 lots without rezoning, but realistically, <br />no more than 13 lots would be feasible. <br />Gaffron said the intent for Outlot A and B, the Van Sloun property to the west, if dedicated as open <br />space, might result in justification for transferring the density to allow 13 lots. <br />Gaffron indicated that the applicant's request for Comprehensive Plan amendment for MUSA <br />boundary change and sewering to include the Morgart property, would be required for rezoning. <br />• Gaffron said the property is only marginally developable without sewer. He indicated that this <br />proposal conflicts with the goals of the Comprehensive Plan and read the stipulations in the Comp <br />Plan as indicated on pages 3 and 4 of the Staff memo. <br />is <br />Gaffron reported that the Council reinforced the opinion that the City should follow the <br />Comprehensive Plan. <br />Gaffron offered two optional methods for granting the proposed amendments. They include (A) <br />changing the policy to allow such a change, or (B) determine that the applicant's proposal has so <br />many compelling characteristics that expansion of the urban area for this development will be a <br />positive move, enhancing those characteristics the City is intent on preserving by its current policy. <br />Gaffron said Staff recommends that Alternative A is a more appropriate method than B as it <br />establishes parameters for change. Alternate B would be a quicker method; however, it may set a <br />precedent of reacting to developer requests for change on an individual basis. <br />Gaffron said it is rare for Orono to accommodate development through MUSA and Comp Plan <br />amendments. Sugar Woods was cited as an example where this did occur. However, Gaffron <br />indicated that that development had a unique set of circumstances. <br />E <br />