Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br />ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br />Monday, September 16, 2016 <br />6:30 o’clock p.m. <br />_____________________________________________________________________________________ <br />  <br />Page 23 of 34  <br />  <br />for a local road is a 50-foot corridor and so Staff is questioning whether the City should request 50 feet of <br />right-of-way or 30 feet of right-of-way. <br /> <br />Gaffron noted this property has been zoned for half-acre lots for at least the last 40 years and it has been <br />guided in the City’s Comprehensive Plan for development of half-acre lots. Any subdivision would be <br />expected to meet those minimum standards for lot area, lot width, setbacks, etc., and the idea of creating <br />substandard lots is one that the Code does not allow. In this particular situation the land is completely <br />vacant and consists of one parcel. <br /> <br />As it relates to the conformity of this proposal with the City’s Comprehensive Plan, at 1.6 units per acre, <br />it would meet the Comprehensive Plan standards for up to two to three acres. Each of the lots as <br />contrived and strangely shaped as they are meet the acreage requirements for the LR-1C zoning district. <br />However, the subdivision does not meet a number of the standards established in the code in regards to <br />the use of back lots. The code states that in general front/back lot divisions may be used for individual <br />lots but may not be used when subdividing a larger parcel into numerous lots if creation of a back lot is <br />merely a convenience to the developer rather than supported by unique site factors. Gaffron stated one of <br />the questions for the Planning Commission to consider is whether or not this configuration is using two <br />back lots as supported by the unique factors of the property. <br /> <br />In regards to the requirements for back lots, the code states that a side lot line shall be at right angles to <br />street lot lines or radial to curving street lines unless a variation of this rule will give a better street or lot <br />plan. <br /> <br />Gaffron illustrated the layout of the lots on the overhead. Proposed Lot 1 is a back lot and does not meet <br />the minimum width requirement of 100 feet at the rear of the required 45-foot front yard. The minimum <br />back lot area requirement of 0.75 acres is met. Proposed Lot 2 abuts Northern Avenue and will be 050 <br />acres in area and 102 feet in width, meeting the LR-1C area/width requirements. Proposed Lot 3 abuts <br />Northern Avenue and will be 0.50 acres in area and 102 feet in width, also meeting the LR-1C <br />requirements. Proposed Lot 6 is a back lot and does not meet the minimum width requirement of 100 feet <br />at the rear of the required 45-foot front yard. The minimum back lot area requirement of 0.75 acres is met <br />but only by including the land north of the wetland. <br /> <br />Gaffron noted both of the back lots are required to meet a 100-foot width at the required setback. Since it <br />is a back lot, in each case they must have 150 percent of the standard acreage, which requires three- <br />quarters of an acre instead of a half-acre and they must also have 150 percent of the side, rear, and front <br />setbacks. The normal setbacks are 30 feet front and rear and 10 feet on the sides. The width of the lot is <br />measured at the rear of the front setback. Gaffron stated the bottom line is that both of those lots do not <br />meet the width requirement at the rear of the front yard, which may be a technicality but should be <br />discussed. <br /> <br />Gaffron stated whenever you dedicate 30 feet for a corridor that is going to be the driveway for a back lot, <br />it requires that there be a separation distance of 30 feet from the neighbor’s house. The neighbor’s house <br />in this case is 18 feet away. That neighbor has submitted comments suggesting that he would not support <br />the idea of having a driveway that close to his bedroom window. Since it is not supported by code, Staff <br />would argue that that location for a 30-foot corridor to gain access to the back lot is not in an appropriate <br />location. <br /> <br />Item #01 - PC Agenda - 10/21/2013 <br />Approval of PC Minutes 09/16/2013 [Page 23 of 34]