Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING <br /> Monday,February 13,2023 <br /> 6:00 o'clock p.m. <br /> won't want to create lots with new zoning or create lots to maintain that split zoning so this new parcel <br /> should be all one zone. And then that raises questions of a sliver of rezoning between two other zoning <br /> districts and the usability of this 25-foot space. So it's more of a design discussion the Council should <br /> have for that applicant. There is the application as submitted today,which would require a lot area <br /> variance,then there's this alternate plan. The applicant,I'm sure would appreciate some feedback on as <br /> well. The new plan was submitted after the Planning Commission meeting so it did not go in front of the <br /> Planning Commission for feedback or analysis. From staff's review of it, it meets the lot area standard so <br /> no variance would be needed. But it doesn't necessarily follow the general guidance of not wanting to <br /> create flag lots or creating accessibility of this space to the building envelope,because it's not contiguous <br /> in land. <br /> Benson asked if it is possible to have the Planning Commission take a look at this since this is essentially <br /> a new plan. <br /> Walsh explained the Council was giving guidance. Then they would bring it to Planning Commission to <br /> go through the process. This is just a guidance conversation. <br /> Brett Larsen, 2040 Carman Street,was with Mark Gronberg. Larsen noted the applicant's preference <br /> would be to split the lots down the middle of the lagoon. We are building a new home on the southern <br /> portion of the lot.We had the architect and the engineer and everybody design the home to fit within that. <br /> We have setback coming at us from three different directions, so that was a limiting factor as well. So we <br /> were able to avoid needing a variance on that southern portion of the lot by tearing down the old home, <br /> moving back out of the setback, and then building within the permitted area.Realistically,the southern <br /> portion is .8 acres. We're not planning to build more than one home on it.But if we if we have to go with <br /> the second proposal,we didn't submit it to the Planning commission,but we did speak with the Planning <br /> Commission about it last month. <br /> Walsh said not in depth,though. They haven't brought it yet for a full conversation or a staff analysis to <br /> make sure it works or how it impacts the property next door, if we can even do flags that go across the <br /> water. In general,I think if it meets everything we always say it's good. But the devils in the details. So <br /> that'd be about as good a guidance I can give unless you have any other guidance. <br /> Johnson said it sounds like the hurdle is if it's a front and back lot, it needs a minimum of 40 feet in width, <br /> right? <br /> Oakden said if they were proposing a front/back lot subdivision,the back lot would need to be 150%,the <br /> zoning district area standard and then it's a 30-foot access outlet. That 30-foot access outlet you're <br /> referencing wouldn't count towards the backlot area. They're proposing to maintain this flag area and not <br /> be a backlot. <br /> Johnson said just because there's a provision in the code that kind of allows it,this isn't an example where <br /> you can use it.But,you know,with the separation of the water there,I'm not supportive of giving a lot <br /> division with this configuration with land on the other side of that lagoon. <br /> Page 8 of 16 <br />