1997 - Zoning File 2293 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR SEPTEMBER 15, 1997 (#2 - #2293 LGA Investment Group - Continued) During the sketch plan review, the Council suggested the rezoning be considered in the context of yielding no more lots than there would be under present zoning. The applicant would need to show how the development would occur in the current zoning without sewer. Gaffron indicated this would be difficult to do. Gaffron said he has concluded that the Van Sloun property under the current zoning would be limited to two lots. The Sollner property, in the MUSA, could be sewered and would be limited to six lots, but more likely five lots due to the topography. The Morgart 10-acre parcel would be limited to five lots but realistically, it would result in no more than three lots with septic. The east Morgart parcel, which is 4.7 acres, is likely to be divided into three lots. This results in the current zoning allowing for a maximum of 17 lots without rezoning, but realistically, no more than 13 lots would be feasible. Gaffron said the intent for Outlot A and B,the Van Sloun property to the west, if dedicated as open space, might result in justification for transferring the density to allow 13 lots. Gaffron indicated that the applicant's request for Comprehensive Plan amendment for MUSA boundary change and sewering to include the Morgart property, would be required for rezoning. Gaffron said the property is only marginally developable without sewer. He indicated that this proposal conflicts with the goals of the Comprehensive Plan and read the stipulations in the Comp Plan as indicated on pages 3 and 4 of the Staff memo. Gaffron reported that the Council reinforced the opinion that the City should follow the Comprehensive Plan. Gaffron offered two optional methods for granting the proposed amendments. They include (A) changing the policy to allow such a change, or (B) determine that the applicant's proposal has so many compelling characteristics that expansion of the urban area for this development will be a positive move, enhancing those characteristics the City is intent on preserving by its current policy. Gaffron said Staff recommends that Alternative A is a more appropriate method than B as it establishes parameters for change. Alternate B would be a quicker method; however, it may set a precedent of reacting to developer requests for change on an individual basis. Gaffron said it is rare for Orono to accommodate development through MUSA and Comp Plan amendments. Sugar Woods was cited as an example where this did occur. However, Gaffron indicated that that development had a unique set of circumstances. 9