Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION <br /> MEETING HELD ON MARCH 16, 1998 <br /> • (#2 - #2340 Robert Waade - Continued) <br /> Gaffron reviewed the general comments in the memorandum, #1-3. He noted that no <br /> additional sewer charges are needed. The property will be served by private wells. He <br /> concluded that only the back lot has riparian access. Covenants and restrictions will be <br /> placed on the chain of title to ensure that no riparian rights are given to the duplex <br /> property. The pond will be located north of the boundary line between lots 1 and 2. The <br /> applicant has asked to receive credit for the pond towards area for the back lot. Gaffron <br /> said the intent of the code is to provide additional buffering, and he believes this is being <br /> accomplished and supported the credit. <br /> Gaffron reviewed the issues for discussion, #1-9 on pages 5 and 6 of the memo. He <br /> recommended the road be private. He noted the code only allows for two properties to be <br /> served by a driveway instead of three as requested. A CUP is required to fill within 5' of <br /> the lot line. Gaffron asked if the Planning Commission agrees with Staff in recommending <br /> the credit of unused 75-250' hardcover towards the 250-500' zone. <br /> Waade had no additional comments at this time. <br /> Russell Norum, 3264 North Shore Drive, noted the location of his property. He said he <br /> has no philosophical objections to the application and is open to being flexible regarding <br /> • variances and conditional use permits. He asked if the private road would be located over <br /> existing land to access the homes from CoRd 51. He is concerned with the road being cut <br /> in noting his own house has had problems with settling and the road will be next to it. <br /> Norum said he also is troubled with the ponding. A large pole building is located nearby <br /> that resulted in flooding in the area to the north of his property. He questioned what <br /> effect the ponding would have to drainage. Norum also indicated there had been an <br /> access road to the west of the property at one time and questioned what happened to that <br /> access for the subject property. He noted there are water pipes running under his lot and <br /> three other lots; their location is unknown. While he believes the new construction will <br /> aid property values, he is concerned with additional noise and lighting. <br /> Smith clarified the concerns voiced by Norum, namely, 1) access to the property, 2) <br /> additional erosion problems, and 3) why the previous access will not be utilized. Norum <br /> said he does not object to the road itself but to further erosion. He felt the new road <br /> would be satisfactory if improvement was made to ponding. <br /> Gaffron remarked that the impact from the driveway location so near Norum's property is <br /> significant due to the steep cuts and needs to be resolved. The City Engineer has not <br /> reviewed this issue. Gaffron said retaining walls may be required. Gaffron indicated the <br /> westerly access driveway never had any formal status. Its location is poor due to sight <br /> lines along the hill. The County has concluded that the proposed access is best in terms of <br /> • sight lines but suggested the hill be cut down. <br /> 2 <br />