My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
03-29-2021 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
2021
>
03-29-2021 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/15/2021 9:22:22 AM
Creation date
4/15/2021 9:20:37 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
85
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
MINUTES OF THE <br />ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING <br />Monday, March 8, 2021 <br />6:00 o’clock p.m. <br />_____________________________________________________________________________________ <br /> <br />Page 17 of 23 <br /> <br />development of this project, Staff identified 4-5 foundational issues, one of those being the access. This <br />area, when the Fire Station was developed, anticipated access to these properties via Redinger Drive, the <br />public road south of the Fire Station, which would require an easement or some sort of access through the <br />City property. The Planning Commission was not supportive of that and suggested that an access off <br />Willow Drive would be appropriate; initially Staff had some concerns from a sight visibility issue and a <br />safety perspective. The Applicant and the City Engineer have reviewed the proposed location of the drive <br />and can support the location as it is shown. Right now, there are 6 buildings, each have 2 units, for a total <br />of 12 units with a private drive or road off Willow Drive. Staff looks for confirmation on the access <br />location for that. Another issue was the storm water design and storm water management for the <br />property. At the sketch plan level, they do not usually get a lot of engineering in terms of how the utilities <br />and storm water will work and they do not expect that. The Applicant has suggested that some of the <br />storm water management would occur off site and would like the Council and the Planning Commission <br />to keep an open mind in terms of the best solution for the storm water management over the course of the <br />development process. The Planning Commission was reluctant to support storm water management that <br />occurred off site, especially if all of the development is occurring on this property. They did agree to <br />“keep an open mind.” Barnhart noted this project is likely to be developed as a RPUD zoning district and <br />the Council may recall the RPUD requires a 5-unit minimum acre for a lot size, unless adjacent to another <br />RPUD zoning district; then they can kind of piggy-back off of that one. The Orono crossing project the <br />Council just saw is kind of attached to the Stone Bay project so that is how they get by with the 3.7-acre <br />project. This one is 1.71 acres and is quite a bit smaller than the 5 acres, so immediately they are looking <br />at some sort of waiver from that requirement. The other option is to create its own zoning district for this <br />project – that raises its own unique challenges – but it certainly can be done. The Planning Commission <br />was not open to creating its own zoning district and seemed to support the RPUD waivers from a zoning <br />perspective. He wants Council to confirm the use of the property. The twin home or duplex-style <br />development here is consistent from a density guidance standpoint for the Comprehensive Plan, it is right <br />in the range of 3-7 units/acre so they are good from that perspective. The Commission did not add any <br />new design standards. Basically, Barnhart is looking for Council comment on zoning, access, storm <br />water management, use of the project (twin home concept), and the design standards if there are any <br />specific goals in mind for this property. <br /> <br />Johnson asked if it is in RR1B zoning district. <br /> <br />Barnhart believes so. <br /> <br />Seals asked if it is the 3-10 units/acre. <br /> <br />Barnhart said the land use guidance is 3-10 units/acre. <br /> <br />Seals asked how m any acres are there. <br /> <br />Barnhart replied 1.71 acres. <br /> <br />Johnson asked what can be done in RR1B. <br /> <br />Barnhart answered RR1B is basically single-family homes; there are other uses but they certainly cannot <br />go to this level of density. That is why they are looking to change the zoning district. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.