Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION <br />MEETING HELD ON MARCH 16, 1998 <br />(U2 - #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. GaflVon <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 drivew'ay instead of three as requested. A CUP is required to fill within 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 w’ill 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 ffom 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.