My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
02-12-1990 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
1990
>
02-12-1990 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/23/2024 1:31:11 PM
Creation date
8/23/2024 1:21:01 PM
Metadata
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
422
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
Zoning Pile #1470 <br />October 10, 1989 <br />Page 4 of 5 <br />However, the negative aspects outweigh the positives in this <br />layout. The required 5 acre minimums are not met. The road <br />could not feasibly be constructed within the outlet due to the <br />steep slopes which would have to be cut or filled. The road <br />wipes out the only feasible drainfield sites for Lot 2. The <br />alternate site for Lot 1 is still on a separate outlet not <br />attached to Lot 1. Again, conceptual Sketch B looks good on <br />paper but does not accommodate the topography or physical <br />characteristics of the property* <br />Conceptual sketch C, Exhibit P7, suggests a planned <br />residential development (PRD) giving each building site a 2+ acre <br />building envelope, with the remaining subdivision acreage as an <br />open space outlet. Outlets B & C would be private road outlets. <br />Outlet C could conceivably be narrower than the standard 50' <br />private road outlet, since it would serve only two lots. <br />Staff Recommendation - <br />Given the information provided by applicant, staff would <br />recommend that the following issues be addressed for the <br />applicant so that he can return with a revised proposal more in <br />keeping with the subdivision requirements while still relating to <br />the natural characteristics of the land: <br />1. Should this be a normal plat subdivision, or should it <br />be a planned residential development? <br />2. Is there any justification to grant variances to allow <br />development with easement roads rather than private road <br />outlets? <br />3. If a private road outlet is required, should it continue <br />to the Reiersgord property? Further, should a private road <br />outlet be continued to the Asao and Deters properties to the <br />north, so that the Luce Line driveway crossing for those two <br />properties might ultimately not be necessary? <br />4. Will Planning Commission require that the alternate site <br />for Lot 1 be within the boundaries of Lot 1, if this is a <br />plat? or, if this becomes a PRD, will Planning Commission <br />allow the alternate site for Lot 1 to be within the open <br />space outlet? <br />5. Presuming that whether this is a plat or a PRD, the <br />^®******ission will not waive the standard requirement <br />that outlet roadways be excluded from lot area, if the <br />remaining acreage after exclusion of roadways is less than <br />15.0 acres, will Planning Commission consider granting of <br />lot area variances with the subdivision?
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.