07-18-1988 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

staff would note that if applicants* intent is to build a house within the Zone Pile 11301 July 14, 19I0 Page leo of Pour i-'i. ~ ^large parcel, it should not be designated as an outlet but as a separate lot that is large enough to be potentially divided in the future. Conceptually, an outlet is only designated when a parcel is intended to not be used until further developed. Staff would note that all of the sites tested on the property require SK>und systess. This is net unusual considering the Kilkenny loaa*‘type soil located in this area of Orono. 3. Mote the 'gerryaandered* configuration of proposed Lot 2. It is staff's understanding that this configuration caae about because the applicants are c^i^elled through a Court Order to sell a 2'-acre parcel to Donald and Judy Keapf as a result of a Purchase kgreeaent entered into by Kenpfs and Whites in 1964. You will note that Lot 1 just barely contains 2 acres of dry, buildable land. Staff has drawn in the building envelope for Lot 2, and suggests that while there way be a feasible house location directly south of the Langert exception, a More probable and attractive building site is east of the drainfield sites tested within the 1.3 acre recoaaaended additional parcel. It would seen to staff that the east/west line between Lots 1 and 2 could be straightened out to provide a nore useful potential secondary alternate drainfield site for Lot 1, while still leaving a plus-*or~ainus 150 foot wide corridor to the rear for Lot 2. 4. The applicants have not provided a topographic nap of the property. The topographic section of the USGS Maps is of a scale that it has little value in discussions of the development of this property. Based on the fact that the property contains a significant area of wetlands, staff feels that it is approp&iate for Planning CoasBission to require that a topographic map of the entire property be provided. 5. In Exhibits G, 1 through 3, you are provided with a plat eap sketch showing existing development in the area, showing the proposed division and the probable future request for development of Outlot A without the need for an interior road, and finally a conceptual diagram of how the areas to the east of County Road 19, south of Bayside Road and north of North Arm Drive West will likely develop under the 2*>acre standard. Given the existing developments along North Arm Drive West, staff would see North Arm Lane extending northward and then vest to County Road 19, with the outlot road being taken from properties on either side. It probably is not feasible to ask for dedication of roadway south of the existing White house, since it is only 45* north of the existing side 1 t line. Staff would also anticipate a northerly extension up to Baylde Road that would allow 2 acre lot development on either side of it. Looking at exhibit G-3, the question becomes, is there a need to dedicate property within the currently proposed plat for future access? s Summary of Issues - 1. The north lot line of proposed Lot 2 is intended by the applicant J