Laserfiche WebLink
*Er,ULAR MEETING OF THE ORONO COUNCIL, SEPTEMBER 25, 1979 Page 7 <br />Staff has several concerns:SUBDIVISION <br />925 Willow Drive South <br />1. The existing driveway location is not adequate (Continued) <br />and should be relocated, especially if nore than <br />2 units are to use it. <br />2.Parcel "X" is a legal lo~, with an existing <br />easement. If requested, a building permit <br />would have to be issued. Therefore, three <br />units would be using the existing driv^ <br />3.Even though the ultimate division is hoped for, <br />there is no guarantee that it will occur. <br />This proposal must stand on its own merits <br />with all normal safeguards for access, wetlands <br />and neighboring property protection. <br />4.The new house site on Lot 2, without future <br />land from parcel "X'* is effectively only 1-1/2 <br />acres even though the entire piece is 7-i- acres. <br />Planning Commission recommended approval of Plan 4 <br />with normal final platting requirements. This <br />would include the park fee, a private easement <br />for Lot 1 and no change in parcel "X's“ easement. <br />This v/ould include a small variance for lot width <br />at the proposed building site. <br />Staff has spent a long time reviewing the many <br />proposals and Hr. Johnston's objective of getting <br />an ultimate subdivision design while assuring <br />quick approval so he can start construction of <br />his house. With Mr. Johnston's concurrence,-we <br />recommend approval of Plan 5, a combination of <br />the ultimate design including all of the P] *\nning <br />Commission's reccxnmended features. <br />1.The proposed house site on Lot 2 is fixed and <br />has approved septic designs. There is no <br />practical reason to include more area to <br />meet density as the entire proposal does <br />average over two acres. In addition, the <br />desired westward expansion is still possible <br />in the future. <br />2.The lot line between Lots 1 and 2 is a practical <br />location along an existing fence line and <br />allows required additional drainfield area on <br />Lot 1. This is better than the location shown <br />on Plan 1 and accounts for the narrowness of <br />Lot 2. <br />(Continued)