02-19-1991 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

5- Zoning File #1619 February 14, 1991 Page 5 The Orono Comprehensive Plan indicates that a maximum of 3 residences should be allowed per shared driveway in rural areas. The Subdivision Code Section 11.33, Subdivision 4 indicates that a private street serving 3 to 6 units should have a 50' right-of- way and 24' paved width. Interior access to the proposed subdivision therefore relies on at least 1 of the 4 lots accessing somewhere other than a single shared driveway. Although the City's policy has been generally consistent in requiring a full-fledged private road for 3 lot subdivisions, the inconsistency between the Comprehensive Plan and the standards in the subdivision code has never been resolved. If Lyman Avenue was an arterial roadway, there would be absolutely no question that a private road and cul-de-sac should be created within the proposed subdivision to serve all 4 lots. It is likely t.iat if such a road and cul-de-sac was required, at least 1 lot would be lost. The final additional interior access issue to consider is whether the existing house should continue to have its driveway access onto a private easement road outside the plat boundaries. This would not seem to meet the intent of the code in providing that lot with an acceptable access to a private road that meets City standards. Clearly, applicants' existing driveway accesses to a substandard private road, it being defined as a road because it serves more than 3 residences. C) Septic Issues/Building Envelopes/Site Planning . Drainfield sites for each lot were tested before proposed lot lines were drawn. In many cases, the drainfield sites either just meet the setback and slope requirements, or in some cases, have portions of sites exceeding the slope limit of 6% adhered to in Orono's Septic Code. Orono's Septic Code is in some respects more strict than the current State model regulations for mound systems, in that the State allows mounds on steeper slopes than 6%. Orono's Code is somewhat ambiguous in that while in 2 places it states that mounds should not be considered for areas with slopes of greater than 6%, in an additional section it gives criteria for mounds on up to 12% slopes. It has been City staff's clear policy to consistently hold near the 6% limit, although variances have been granted to put mounds on slopes up to 7 or 8% in cases where there is a low potential for affecting improvements downs lope. 1