Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br />ORONO CITY PLANNING COMMISSION <br />Monday, October 21, 2013 <br />6:30 o’clock p.m. <br />_____________________________________________________________________________________ <br />  <br />Page 12 of 42  <br />  <br /> <br />5. #13-3631 LANDSOURCE, LLC, REPRESENTED BY TODD HOLMERS, 3700 NORTHERN <br />AVENUE, SUBDIVISION, 7:30 P.M. – 8:09 P.M. <br /> <br />Todd Holmers, Applicant, was present. <br /> <br />Gaffron stated what is before the Planning Commission tonight is a two option revision of what the <br />Planning Commission reviewed at their September meeting. Initially the applicant was proposing a site <br />plan that included some back lots, which was problematic in that they did not meet the code standards and <br />they forced development to occur near the back of the property. <br /> <br />Gaffron indicated the slide on the overhead shows the evolution of the plans that reflect an attempt from <br />Staff’s perspective to normalize the lot lines but it still resulted in back lots with the development of the <br />north part of the property. The next slide depicts a concept that creates six lots, each of them having <br />equal width but they also have some issues with the center lot having some land across the wetland, <br />which really serves no purpose. <br /> <br />Gaffron stated Staff did discuss with the applicant the six lots and it was suggested by the applicant that <br />they have enough acreage that could support seven lots but the lots would not have enough width to <br />support the district standards. If the 100-foot width is required, the applicant would only be able to create <br />four or five lots. <br /> <br />Gaffron stated the next slide illustrates Option 1, which essentially locates all the homes up front but still <br />has issues with access to the rear. This option also brings up the question of preservation of the northerly <br />portion of the site. One of the goals that the Planning Commission set for the applicant was to look at <br />clustering the development to the south and creating a conservation easement over the rear of the property <br />as much as possible. <br /> <br />Option 2 is what Staff would recommend. This plan proposes approximately two-thirds of the property to <br />be covered under a conservation easement to the north with individual lots that are approximately 76 feet <br />wide. The lots range from very small to reasonable sized and range from .18 up to .43 acres. Gaffron <br />noted this property is located in the LR-1C one-half acre district. <br /> <br />Gaffron noted Option 2 would be a PRD, which would allow the density that is proposed but allows <br />smaller lot sizes and narrower lot widths. It would be Staff’s recommendation that the subdivision be a <br />PRD. One of the concerns inherent in attempting to locate six houses in here is it will have the <br />appearance of a row of houses. In this situation, the residents of the neighborhood indicated at the last <br />meeting that they would prefer the back of the property be preserved and there appeared to be general <br />approval of the houses being located to the front of the property. The question remains as to whether the <br />development can occur at the front of the property and yet still avoid the appearance of a row of houses. <br /> <br />The buildable envelope requirements are difficult to meet for the lots at the center of the property due to <br />the setback from the buffer. Gaffron indicated Lots 4 and 5 will have some challenges in designing a <br />house that would meet the setbacks. The standards of the RPUD would not be met but the PRD standards <br />could be varied to allow this type of development. <br /> <br />Gaffron stated another option would be to reduce the number of homes from six to five and allow the <br />center lots to be combined and allow some different shaped houses. The Planning Commission could <br />Item #01 - PC Agenda - 11/18/2013 <br />Approval of Planning Commission Minutes 10/21/2013 <br />[Page 12 of 42]