Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION <br /> Tuesday,February 18,2020 <br /> 6:00 p.m. <br /> Thiesse asked if it would be possible, if there is nothing in the easement,to rearrange it so it is in his road. <br /> Barnhart stated that may be possible. <br /> Thiesse suggested that he may also be able to do something different with Lot 3 so there is a more <br /> developable lot. <br /> Barnhart stated that the City did something similar with Brackens Point road a few years ago. <br /> Libby stated that Barnhart has mentioned the Council several times when talking about MUSA and asked <br /> for clarification from him on which Council he was referring to and whether he meant the City Council or <br /> the Met Council. <br /> Barnhart stated that the City Council established the land use map which includes the boundaries for the <br /> MUSA. He stated that the Met Council established minimum density for the sewered areas which for the <br /> City has to be an average of 3 units per acre. He stated that there are a lot of large lots along the lake and <br /> in the 60s and 70s it was decided that the City wanted to serve those with sanitary sewer in order to assist <br /> with water quality goals. He stated that the density goals are way off, so the City took a look at other <br /> areas of the City where there can be higher density growth to get the average closer to 4 units per acre. If <br /> this development was added,that would mean that the density would be lowered in the City and they <br /> would have to find more density someplace else which is why the City Council determined it was best to <br /> keep this area out of the MUSA system. <br /> Libby asked if the applicant could appeal to the Council in a circumstance like this because there is sewer <br /> reasonably close. He stated that he is asking for informational purposes on behalf of the applicant. <br /> Barnhart stated that the applicant can definitely try an appeal in this circumstance. <br /> Mr. Quinlivan stated that they have been down that road a bit and noted that they had proposed more lots <br /> in the area to help with the density, but they did not want it to be part of MUSA. He expressed his <br /> surprise that there isn't a way to exempt this piece of property from the density requirements since it <br /> seems to make so much sense to hook it up with the system because it is so close. <br /> Ressler asked if the Commission had any feedback regarding the general lot layout. <br /> Libby stated that he lives in a neighborhood that looks very similar to this with a dead-end cul-de-sac that <br /> is served with a mix of City sewer and private systems. He stated that he is very comfortable with the <br /> layout. He stated that he can't seem to let go of that fact that the applicant will have to make some <br /> significant ground surface sacrifices in order to have a second septic site. <br /> Erickson stated that he has no concern about the layout. <br /> Ressler stated that he feels Barnhart covered the concerns about the road intersection fairly well,but,in <br /> his opinion,he doesn't think there is a better way to get it over there. <br /> Bollis asked if they would adjust the tiny piece on Lot 1 to make it an Outlot so a variance for width <br /> wouldn't be needed for Lot 1. <br /> Page 19 of 30 <br />