Laserfiche WebLink
. , <br /> MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br /> Monday,May 18,2015 <br /> 6:30 o'clock p.m. <br /> property from west to east. The easterly two-thirds of the property is within the Shoreland Overlay <br /> District. <br /> Layout Option A proposes a fairly rectangular-shaped easterly lot with its west line exactly 30 feet from <br /> the existing house on proposed Lot 1. Required septic drain field setback from the wetland boundaries is <br /> 50 feet and required structure setback is 35 feet from wetlands or the MCWD required buffer plus 10 feet, <br /> whichever is greater. <br /> Layout Option B has the proposed dividing line angled to place most of the existing driveway in Lot 2 <br /> and increases Lot 2's contiguous dry buildable to 1.9 acres, while reducing Lot 1's dry buildable to 2.0 <br /> acres. <br /> Standard perimeter drainage and utility easements will be required along all property boundaries in the <br /> plat as well as flowage and conservation easements over portions of the delineated wetlands falling <br /> outside the existing flowage and conservation easements. The City's Comprehensive Plan does not show <br /> any future trails for West Branch Road so no trail easement is required. The property will be subject to <br /> the stormwater and drainage trunk fee. <br /> The primary issue for discussion tonight is that the property does not contain 4.0 acres of contiguous dry <br /> buildable land. Gaffron stated the City simply does not approve variances for the creation of substandard <br /> lots, and by definition the lack of 2.0 acres of contiguous dry buildable in each lot would result in a <br /> nonconformity and would require a variance. Only in PRD/RPUD planned development situations has <br /> the City allowed the creation of lots less than the required minimum dry buildable acreage. <br /> In the opinion of Staff,the property does not have characteristics that meet the criteria for a planned <br /> development process for the following reasons: <br /> 1. The property does not contain the minimum 4.0 acres of contiguous dry buildable land required to <br /> meet the provisions for PRD development. <br /> 2. The property does not meet the minimum 5.0 acres of dry buildable land required to qualify for <br /> RPUD development, and in Staffls view does not appear to meet any one of the following <br /> specified criteria in lieu of the 5-acre requirements: <br /> a. Unusual physical features of the properly itself or of the surrounding neighborhood such <br /> that development as a RPUD will conserve a physical or topographic feature of <br /> importance to the neighborhood or community. <br /> b. The property is directly adjacent to or across a public street from property which has been <br /> developed previously as a RPUD or planned residential development and will be <br /> perceived as and will function as an extension of that previously approved development. <br /> c. The property is located in an area where the proposed development provides a transition <br /> between a commercial or industrial area and an existing residential area or an <br /> intermediate or principal arterial as defined in the Comprehensive Plan. <br /> Page 26 of 37 <br />