Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION <br /> MEETING HELD ON JANUARY 20, 1998 <br /> • (#20 - #2321 Dan Anderson- Continued) <br /> Schroeder stated the septic regulations govern the planning of development and no <br /> exceptions would be made in regards to septic. McMillan indicated the difficulty in <br /> obtaining two septic sites for 2 acre lots. Otto said the slopes are also a concern as well <br /> as the 6%restriction. Otto indicated that the Lot 3 septic sites are 6% for the primary <br /> side on the north side and 8% for the alternate. Lindquist informed him that all septic <br /> sites must be conforming. Gaffron said sewering would make it easier for building sites, <br /> but there is no plan for sewering and the property is not within the MUSA. He noted the <br /> Council is reviewing expansion of 2 acre zoning but it is difficult to predict what will <br /> occur in the future. Plans for alternate sites are required but they may not be needed in <br /> the future. <br /> There were no public comments. <br /> (#21) #2324 JAMES RENDER,HAVING AN INTEREST IN 1365 TONKAWA <br /> ROAD - to subdivide the parcel into three lots for residential development <br /> Mark Gronberg represented the applicant. <br /> Gaffron reported that the sketch plan is for a two acre site located across from Maxwell <br /> 1110 Bay in the 1/2 acre zoning. The 3-lot subdivision will meet the width requirements in the <br /> LR-1C Zoning District. Three options are being provided for the development. <br /> Option A is the preferred layout. It would include an outlot driveway at a 30' width. A <br /> private road is required for the three lots. Lots 1 and 2 require back lot area variances <br /> where 3/4 acres is required. <br /> Option B is a modified plan with two lots abutting the County road. An outlot would <br /> serve the back lot and meet the 3/4 acre standard. Lot 3 becomes somewhat limited in its <br /> development flexibility in this scenario and would creates the need for an additional <br /> driveway access. <br /> Option C includes a short cul-de-sac and is the most conforming of the three proposals. <br /> No width variance is required but there would be alot of hardcover due to the road. There <br /> are also potential changes to the character of the neighborhood in this proposal. <br /> Gaffron reviewed the pros and cons for a cul-de-sac. This would be the shortest cul-de- <br /> sac developed to date in the City. The minimum paved width for a private road is 24' and <br /> 20' for a public driveway. The total hard surface for the entire site, including the road, <br /> would be 21,000 s.f. or 24% of the property. This assumes that all three lots are <br /> conforming to the 25%hardcover limitation in the 75-250' zone. <br /> 41 <br />