Laserfiche WebLink
Metadata
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015 Laserfiche. All rights reserved.
NUNUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION <br />MEETING HELD ON MARCH 18, 1996 <br />( #10 - #2119 Barnett/Hilloway Sketch Plan Review - Continued) <br />Gronberg asked if the septic site be located in lot 5 if there would be the need to meet the <br />200' setback for the frontage noting the 17' taken from the lot for right -of -way. Mabusth <br />said the Commission would need to decide if they would allow that variance. Gronberg <br />agreed that the access was unsafe to that lot. <br />Mabusth said there was also the issue of number of lots if the internal road was built. <br />There is 8 acres on the north between lots 1 -4. Gronberg said there would be a problem <br />with the steepness of the slope on the east lot line, and it would require fill. <br />Gustafson was informed that the road would be a private road built to City standards. <br />Gustafson said the road would be allowed up to a 12% grade, though 10% would be <br />preferred. <br />Jim Pfennig of Hilloway was informed that a private road can be used by another <br />homeowner through an underlying public easement. This would allow the adjacent land <br />owners use but remain private. Mabusth said the costs involved in maintaining the road <br />would be shared and could have an introductory fee but it would be decided with a private <br />maintenance agreement resolved by property owners. Pfennig was concerned that an <br />internal road would destroy the look of the lots and would like an additional curb cut for <br />• lot 2. Smith said a shared driveway could be used. Mabusth noted that the County may <br />not approve an additional curb cut. Gustafson said there was good site distance, if kept <br />far enough away from the intersection, but it would require following County jurisdiction. <br />• <br />Mabusth asked if the internal road was possible and whether it could go beyond the Geffre <br />property. Gustafson suggested putting together different options on what is or is not <br />feasible in determining the road's location. Gustafson said the parcel does have the <br />acceptable location for access road but questioned whether it was desirable to have all of <br />the lots achieve access from internal road. <br />Iry Wackman was in the audience. Wackman said he has a purchase agreement to <br />purchase the property to the east and is curious about the road situation. It is his intent to <br />build one home at this time and has no current plans to subdivide. <br />Peterson reviewed that the issues for the sketch plan pertained to septic sites, wetlands, <br />and the roadway. Mabusth noted the limited area in the northern part of the parcel. <br />Peterson and Smith said they would be willing to consider a lot width variance for an <br />internal road. They were undecided on a variance if a backlot was created. Gronberg <br />commented that with a cul -de -sac, parcels usually do not meet the 200' requirement and <br />are routinely granted a variance. <br />14 <br />