Laserfiche WebLink
Metadata
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015 Laserfiche. All rights reserved.
staff would note that Zona Pile 11301 <br />July 14, 198t <br />Paga Two of Four <br />1C applicants' intent is to build a house within the <br />I <br />larga parcel, it should not be designated as an outlet but as a separata <br />lot that is larga enough to be potentially divided in the future. <br />Conceptually, an outlet is only designated whan a parcel is intended to not <br />be used until further developed. <br />Staff would note that all of the sites tested on the property require sound <br />systaas. This is not unusual considering the lilkenny loaB*>type soil <br />located in this area of Orono. <br />3. Rote the *gerrynandered* configuration of proposed Lot 2. It is <br />staff's understanding that this configuration caee about because the <br />applicants are coepelled through a Cowrt Order to sell a 2-*scre parcel to <br />Donald and Judy Keepf as a result of a Purchase hgreeeent entered into by <br />Kaepfs and Whites in 19S4. You will note that Lot 1 just barely contains 2 <br />acres of dry, buildable land. Staff has drawn in the building envelope for <br />Lot 2, and suggests that while there eay be a feasible house locstion <br />directly south of the Langert exception, a more probable and attractive <br />building site is east of the drainfield sites tested within the 1.3 sere <br />recommended additional parcel. It would seem to staff that the east/west <br />line between Lots 1 and 2 could be straightened out to provide a more <br />useful potential secondary alternate drainfield site for Lot 1, while still <br />leaving a plus-or"minus 150 foot wide corridor to the rear for Lot 2. <br />4. The applicants have not provided a topographic suip of the <br />property. The topographic section of the OSGS Maps is of a scale that it <br />has little value in discussions of the development of this property. Based <br />on the fact that the property contains a significant area of wetlands, <br />staff feels that it is appropriate for Planning Commission to require that <br />a topographic map of the entire property be provided. <br />5. In Exhibits G, 1 through 3, you are provided with a plat map <br />sketch showing existing development in the area, showing the proposed <br />division and the probable future request for development of Outlot A <br />without the need for an interior road, and finally a conceptual diagram of <br />how the areas to the east of County Road 19, south of Bayside Road and <br />north of North Arm Drive West will likely develop under the 2"scre <br />standard. Given the existing developments along North Arm Drive Nest, <br />staff would see North Arm Lane extending northward and then west to County <br />Road 19, with the outlot road being taken from properties on either side. <br />It probably is not feasib'’e to ask for dedication of roadway south of the <br />existing White house, since it is only 45* north of the existing side lot <br />line. Staff would also anticipate a northerly extension up to Bayside Road <br />that would allow 2 acre lot development on either side of it. Looking at <br />exhibit G-3, the question becomes, is there a need to dedicate property <br />within the currently proposed plat for future access? <br />Summary of Issues - <br />1. The north lot line of proposed Lot 2 is intended by the applicant <br />J