My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
05-19-2025 - Agenda Packet Planning Commission - Planning Commission Packet
Orono
>
Planning Commission
>
2025
>
05-19-2025 - Agenda Packet Planning Commission - Planning Commission Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/12/2026 10:57:18 AM
Creation date
5/21/2025 3:21:49 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Administration
Admin Doc Type
Agenda Packet Planning Commission
Section
Planning Commission
Subject
Planning Commission Packet
Document Date
5/19/2025
Retention Effective Date
5/21/2025
Retention
Permanent After File Date
Protection
Public
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
123
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
4 <br />2. The Property is Eligible to be Rezoned to an RPUD <br /> <br />The site proposed for rezoning to an RPUD does not have the minimum area of five acres <br />required by Sec. 78-626 of the City Code to be developed as an RPUD. But the Council can <br />make a finding that an RPUD is permissible under an exception to the five-acre minimum <br />because: <br />(b) the property is directly adjacent to or across a public street from property which <br />has been developed previously as a RPUD or planned residential development and <br />will be perceived as and will function as an extension of that previously approved <br />development. <br /> <br />The Property is directly adjacent to Northgate, which was developed as a planned <br />residential development, on the west and the south and across a public street (Ferndale Road <br />North) on the east from the Ferndale North neighborhood, which was developed as an RPUD. <br />Given the character of the proposed development, it can easily “be perceived as” and can <br />“function as an extension of” these two previously approved developments. <br /> <br />The City Council made a similar finding to allow the property that was redeveloped for <br />the Oliver Hill development to be rezoned as an RPUD. The Oliver Hill development, a <br />subdivision of 8 lots, did not have the minimum five acres required by Sec. 78-626 to be rezoned <br />as an RPUD. But the City Council made a finding that because the property was directly <br />adjacent to the Glendale Cove RPUD, Oliver Hill could be developed as an RPUD because it <br />satisfied the exception contemplated by Sec. 78-626(1)(b) to the five-acre minimum requirement. <br />To this day, Glendale Cove and Oliver Hill, which were developed by different developers, <br />remain entirely separate RPUDs with separate RPUD development contracts. <br /> <br />3. The Proposed Development’s Conformity to the RPUD Requirements <br /> <br />The proposed development would be able to conform to almost all of the development <br />standards set forth in Sec. 78-626 of the City Code, as reflected below in the following chart: <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />37
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.