06-21-1997 Planning Commission Minutes

Home Browse Search

• ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR JULY 219 1997 ( #21 - #2272 Wyatt Moe - Continued) separate access to Loma Linda to the northern property. Gaffron said it is critical to know what portion would be divided between the two lots. He suggested the applicant make formal application for a vacation and include proposed lot widths. JoEllen Hurr said the current building lot is very small, and the applicant's intention is to create two lots. The survey shows that the applicant owns the land where the road is located. They felt it was a good opportunity for the City to get the road which is needed. Hurr said Parcel A includes wetlands. She saw no reason to make the lots identical and would like to maintain a narrow strip on the shoreline. The location of the ditch delineates what can be done and can't be built over. Hurr suggested a conservation and flowage easement be taken on the property to the rear. She feels there is no need for access from Loma Linda with the driveway currently existing. Hawn asked if there would be a garage for the new home. Hurr indicated there would be. Hurr reported that each proposed lot is two times the size of the lot to the south of the property. • Lindquist asked how wide the lots would be. Mr. Moe said they are 60'. Schroeder was informed that the lots to the south have received variances. Schroeder asked what is currently happening with the cabin. Hurr said it is a buildable lot and sewer has been paid for. Schroeder asked what could be built there now. Gaffron said it would involve adding to hardcover. Hardcover percentages would be lessened by the rearrangement but a variance still required. The proposal is for a 2200 s.f. footprint home. Hurr indicated that the house is similar to the house to the south. Hawn said the plan was conceptually good but questioned what occurs until the vacation is approved. Hurr said the applicant is asking for conceptual approval in order to gain an idea of what can occur. Lindquist said he saw the situation as a win -win proposition. Hurr agreed. She said the applicant was not made aware of the need for a width variance when application made. Gaffron said staff did not have survey and was unable to catch all of the requirements due to that. Hurr said the applicant does not want to have more than .62 acre in each lot. With extensive drainage noted, she asked if Commission would approve the angle to the rear. With the right -of- way, it would possibly be reduced to about .55 acre. She asked if there was concern with • conceptual approval. Gaffron said that would be satisfactory with direction regarding the size of 33