Laserfiche WebLink
TO: <br />FROM: <br />DATE: <br />Chair Hawn and Orono Planning Commission Members <br />Ron Moorse, City Administrator <br />Michael P. Gaffron, Senior Planning Coordinator <br />May 12, 1999 <br />SUBJECT: #2490 Charles & Sue Van Eeckhout, 120 Brown Road South - Sketch Plan Review <br />Zoning District: RR-IB, Single Family Rural Residential, 2 acre, septic/well <br />Proposal: Subdivide 20-acre parcel to create 9 sewered building sites ranging from 1.0 acre to <br />1.8 acres in area. The proposal as presented would require: <br />1. Rezoning from RR-IB (Single Family, 2 Acre) to R-1A (Single Family, 1 Acre) <br />2. Sanitary sewer from the City of Long Lake <br />3. Expansion of the Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA) <br />4. At least two variances to the "Back Lot" ordinance <br />5. Creation of a private road in a substandard (40') corridor <br />6. At least two lot width variances <br />7. Creation of a shared driveway crossing of Long Lake Creek <br />8. Construction of road or driveway through at least two delineated w'etlands. <br />9. Creation of a wetland outlot for "Park" which would be in conflict with City <br />requirements that wetlands in plats be platted as part of adjoining lots. <br />10. Construction of an 800'+ private driveway extending from the private road to serve <br />Lot 4. <br />List of Exhibits <br />A - Application <br />B - Area Plat Map <br />C - Shoreland Map <br />D - Survey/Sketch Plan with Topography <br />E - RR-IB Zoning District Standards <br />F - R-1 A Zoning District Standards <br />G - Land Use Policies : CMP pages 4-12 thru 4-22 <br />H - Current MUSA Map <br />Conformity to Zoning District Standards and Comprehensive Plan <br />The proposal does not conform to the RR-IB Zoning District Standards nor to many of the rural area <br />goals and policies contained in the Land Use section of the Orono Comprehensive Plan (See Exhibits <br />E, F and G). <br />Applicant has suggested to staff that the 1975 rezoning which changed this area from 1-acre density <br />to 2-acre, should be considered as a 'taking' of value, and that this property should be allowed to <br />develop under 1 -acre standards. Staff strongly disagrees, and would note that dozens of properties