Laserfiche WebLink
Schroeder asked Waters what would happen if the Council did not recommend a MUSA <br />amendment. Waters said he would ask for direction and felt a development along the lines <br />of sketch plan 2 wnirlrl wgrk. HP noted that the road would probably be as presented in <br />sketch plan 3 and sewering would go up to the MUSA portion with the two acre lots not <br />having connection rights. He would provide septic sites where possible. <br />McMillan questioned whether the sketch plan could be sent to the Council without a direct <br />recommendation. <br />Lindquist suggested determining the opinion of the home owners in the area about sketch <br />plan 3. He feels it would not make sense to by -pass the two -acre lots from sewering. <br />2 _► <br />MINUTES OF THE ORONO pLANNING COMMISSION <br />MEETING HELD ON JUNE 16, 1997 <br />r a) <br />_ 4 it - nt _ <br />SS eldh L laF1 L Ltiili���tC# <br />Gaffron showed Lindquist the boundary lines of the MUSA through this property. <br />Gaffron said the property would have to be within the MUSA for the plan to work. <br />Lindquist, Stoddard, and Smith agreed that there were problems with sketch plan 4 as <br />presented. <br />There were no public comments at this time. <br />Waters renorted having attempted to contact Irene Silber; a neighbor of this property, to <br />no avail. Lindquist agreed that it is important to receive neighborhood input. <br />McMillan said she saw the biggest obstacle as being whether the Council would <br />and applying for a MUSA amendment. She <br />recommend amending the comprehensive plan <br />acknowledged the impacts of development without sewering while noting the higher <br />density required in severed areas. <br />Lindquist responded that sketch plan 2 that involves two acre zoning would answer these <br />concerns. Gaffron indicated that this plan calls for 16 lots averaging 1.68 acres. Gaffron <br />lots septic sites with the steep topography. <br />• <br />said he does not believe all of the could supply <br />2-acre lots according to the <br />Schroeder indicated that sketch plan 2 would include seven <br />_h_ _ _-der _ <br />lots could septic. <br />zoning but not septic requirements. He questioned how many provide <br />Gaffron indicated there were about 14 lots that could provide septic noting lots 9 and 11 <br />could not. McMillan noted that running sewer to the property at this density might not be <br />economical. Schroeder indicated that the cost concern would be a problem for the <br />developer to consider. <br />Gaffron indicated that if no change was made to the 7,oning and the properties were <br />sewered, sketch plan 2 would work. If sewering is not possible, sketch plan 2 would not <br />work. <br />Schroeder asked Waters what would happen if the Council did not recommend a MUSA <br />amendment. Waters said he would ask for direction and felt a development along the lines <br />of sketch plan 2 wnirlrl wgrk. HP noted that the road would probably be as presented in <br />sketch plan 3 and sewering would go up to the MUSA portion with the two acre lots not <br />having connection rights. He would provide septic sites where possible. <br />McMillan questioned whether the sketch plan could be sent to the Council without a direct <br />recommendation. <br />Lindquist suggested determining the opinion of the home owners in the area about sketch <br />plan 3. He feels it would not make sense to by -pass the two -acre lots from sewering. <br />2 _► <br />