Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION <br />MEETING HELD ON AUGUST 18, 1997 <br />• <br />( #2 - #2279/ #2280 Marc and Tracy Whitehead - Continued) <br />Lindquist reiterated that the subdivision would include a plan for Lots 1, 2, and 3 with <br />septic sites, residences, and driveways shown to scale for review at the September, <br />Planning Commission meeting. <br />Whitehead noted she had intended to be out of town at that time. Schroeder informed her <br />she could send a reoresentative. Whitehead was informed that the clan should be able to <br />be approved with the changes as noted. Hawn questioned whether the applicant could be <br />accommodated through another meeting. Schroeder noted that it would require a public <br />hearing. <br />Lindquist moved, Schroeder seconded, to table Application #2279/2280 for a 34ot <br />subdivision for review at the September meeting of the Planning Commission. Vote: <br />Ayes 7, Nays 0. <br />Whitehead asked if the driveway would be part of Lot I or Lot 2. Gafiron said he would <br />recommend the driveway be platted as a separate outlot for the westerly 20' with a 30' <br />width for the shared driveway for Lots I and 2. He noted Lot 1 is a front lot, while Lot 2 <br />is not. Whitehead indicted that if Lot 2 is a back lot, it would necessitate a 75' setback for <br />the house and push it into the wetland area. She would then need 45' to get the driveway <br />. in to meet the 26 separation. Gaffron informed her that he felt the house location as <br />noted should meet the setback. <br />• <br />Whitehead asked if there were other issues to consider. Schroeder noted the <br />consideration of the back/front lot issue. Gaffron indicated that the applicant is typically <br />responsible to upgrade Lyman Avenue. Schroeder said it would be guided by precedence. <br />Gafiron noted the City Engineer had indicated that the road would require upgrading with <br />more houses built. Lyman to Smith Avenue is currently narrower than the standard <br />allows. <br />Hawn indicated an easement could be eliminated if the driveway serving the existing house <br />was brought onto the property. Whitehead said it was technically possible but would <br />result in the loss of about 20 trees. <br />McMillan questioned whether a vegetation map should be required. Ga£fron said it would <br />help in olacement of the driveway if the Planning Commission requires its relocation. <br />McMillan asked that this be included as well as vegetation for the Stankovsky's if the <br />driveway is placed by their property. Gaffron asked if the vegetation map should include <br />both existing screening and trees. McMillan asked that it include what currently exists and <br />what will be required. <br />10 <br />