My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
03-12-1990 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
1990
>
03-12-1990 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/8/2024 10:35:23 AM
Creation date
10/8/2024 10:19:51 AM
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.
/
820
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
•x*i»i«r«L*i9f*I*] <br />[•»«*r*i <br />L*i»pr* <br />L*l-«7i1 <br />^MlirOfTSiWiT:^ <br />•1»PV»I <br />Zoning Pile #1470October 10, 1989 Page 4 of 5However, the negative aspects outweigh the positives in this layout. The required 5 acre minimums are not met. The road could not feasibly be constructed within the outlet due to the steep slopes which would have to be cut or filled. The road wipes out the only feasible drainfield sites for Lot 2. The alternate site for Lot 1 is still on a separate outlet not attached to Lot 1. Again, conceptual Sketch B looks good on paper but does not accommodate the topography or physical characteristics of the property.Conceptual sketch C, Exhibit F7, suggests a planned residential development (PRD) giving each building site a 2+ acre building envelope, with the remaining subdivision acreage as an open space outlet. Outlets B & C would be private road outlets. Outlet C could conceivably be narrower than the standard 50' private road outlet, since it would serve only two lots. <br />Staff ReccMMmdation *• <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 />outlots? <br />3. If a private road outlot is required, should it continue <br />to the Reiersgord property? Further, should a private road <br />.ot be continued to the Asao and Deters properties to the <br />i. i, so that the Luce Line driveway crossing for those two <br />pZi jrties 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 />Planning Commission 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.