Laserfiche WebLink
NIINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMNIISSION MEETING <br /> Monday,May 18,ZO15 <br /> b:30 o'clock p.m. <br /> property from west to east. The easterly two-thirds of the property is within�e 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 sett�ack from the wetland baunderies is <br /> 50 fcet and required structure setback is 35 feet&om wetIands or the MCWD reyuired buffer plus 10 feet, <br /> whichever is greater. <br /> Layout Option B has the proposed dividing line angled to place most of the eicisting driveway in Lot 2 <br /> and increases Lot Z'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 tt�e <br /> plat as well as flowage and conservation easements over portions af the deiineated wetlands falIing <br /> outside the existing flowage and conservation easements. The City's Comprehensive Plsn does not show <br /> any future trails far West Branch Road so no trail oa.sement is required. The propeity will be subject to <br /> the storxnwater and drainage trunk fee. <br /> The primary issue for discUssion tonight is that the properiy does not contain 4.0 acres of contiguons dry <br /> builda.ble land. Gaffron stated the City simply does not approve variances for the creation of substandaz�d <br /> lots,and by definiNon 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/RPLTD planned developmeat situations has <br /> the City allowed the creation of lats less than the required minimum dry buiidable acreage. <br /> In the opinion of Staff,the property does not have characteristics that maet t�o 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 require�d to qualify for <br /> RPUD development, and in Sta�s 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 tt�e property itself or of the surrounding neighborhood such <br /> that developm�nt as a RPUD will conserve a physical or topographic festure of <br /> itx�portance to the neighborhood or community. <br /> b. The property is directly adjacent to or across a public street from property wluch has been <br /> developed previously as a RPUD or planned residential development and wiil be <br /> perceived as and wi11 function as an extension of that previously approved development <br /> c. The properiy is located in an area where the proposed development provides a transition <br /> between a commercial or industrial area and an existang residential area or an <br /> intermediate or principal arterial as defined in the Comprehensive Plan. <br /> Page 2fi of 37 <br />