05-15-2017 Planning Commission Packet

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, April 17,2017 6:30 o'clock p.m. Gaffron displayed some aerial photographs from 1945 through 1975 depicting the property and surrounding area. Gaffron noted by 1960 the area had become filled in a little bit more,and by 1970,it had been completely filled in. By 1971 some volunteer trees have started to grow on the property. Gaffron stated this is a piece of property that has been vacant but has gone through a number of changes. The property was replatted in 1971 from the initial two Registered Land Survey(RLS)tracts into three lots but remained vacant. In 1975, an application to re-plat the property to convert the three lots into just two lots was reviewed. Despite opposition from the neighborhood and allegations that the filling was done illegally,the re-plat was approved with the understanding that the approval should not be construed as building permit approval nor that the land was buildable. The re-plat into two lots was never filed and the property currently remains as three separate vacant tax parcels. The applicants have submitted a fairly detailed sketch plan for review tonight. A tree inventory has been completed for the property. A majority of the trees are volunteer trees of poor quality. A line of huge cottonwoods once stood along the Carman Bay shoreline but were girdled by beavers and eventually were removed. The applicants are proposing to construct two homes on the property. Gaffron noted there are a variety of existing easements that will need to be eliminated. There is also a view easement in favor of the Powell property at 2916 Casco Point Road which limits the number, location and height of the homes allowed. In addition,there are portions of the property located within the floodplain that would need to be filled. The applicants are also proposing an outlot with a driveway as far away from the wetland as possible but still remain within the outlot. The driveway will require a hardcover variance. While eight feet of width is minimal for a driveway serving two residences,that is the maximum width allowed by code within 75 feet of the lake. With the driveway located so close to the lake, it would be appropriate that stormwater management facilities be established to mitigate impacts of runoff from the driveway. Gaffron noted there was a City project completed approximately five years ago to enhance the shoreline in the area adjacent to the lagoon to cover the City's sewer line. An easement was also created for a cul- de-sac on the property many years ago but the cul-de-sac was never constructed. City sewer and water are available to the property. Page 46 of 72