09-15-1997 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

KHNUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON AUGUST 18.1997 (#2 - #2279/#2280 Marc and Tracy Whitehead - Continued) Whitehead noted that this is the second review of the property. She thought the chan^g of the cul-de-sac to a shared drivew-ay would enable her to gain the alternate seotic site for Lot 4. Whitehead indicated that there is 5.89 acres between Lots 1 and 2 questioning whether Lot 2 would need a lot area variance Schroeder received confirmation from Gafifron that it would create a front lot/back lot scenario. Schroeder noted that lot area variances are tvnicallv not anoroved for new si»hdivi«c5on Lindquist reiterated that he would not approve the application without two septic sites for Lot 4, noting that even with Outlot B, there is still a problem. Whitehead acknowledged that the ahemate septic site would still be located underneath the driveway. Whitehead asked how it would work if Lots 2 and 4 were combined. Lindquist said h would become one lot. and the shared drivewav should be at least 50' from the neighboring property. Whitehead said a 50' setback is not required. Gaflfron confirmed that only a 30' setback would be required as it becomes a side street. If it was an outlot driveway, the house to the driveway would be 50', Schroeder noted there is ample room to meet that setback. ^Tiitehead said the Stankovsky's home was shown at 74' from the lot line when the plan was reviewed for its construction but was subsequently built at 31'. She said the 1,13 acre Stankovsky lot was to be built on the existing pad but expanded out from it. Schroeder indicated that this is a senarate matter but acknowledeed it should not have occurred. He was informed that the Stankovsky house was built 11 years ago. Schroeder noted with a 3-k>t subdivision, the Stankovsky's should be able to acquire additional land from the Whitehead's. Whitehead said they have considered that possibility but noted that the driveway would require a retaining wall. McMillan suggested going around to the northeast side of the old Lot 4. Whitehead said that area was too steep. Whitehead asked if the application could be presented to the Council at their September 8 meeting. Schroeder said he felt there was a lack of necessary information for that to occur. Gaffron suggested further review at the September 15 Planning Commission meeting for Council consideration at the Seotember 22 Council meeting. Gaflfron indicated that the lot lines for Lots 2 and 3 should be changed to meet the 200' width requirement under the 3-lot subdivision as noted above. Whitehead thought this could occur. Schroeder suggested, if the Planning Commission was in agreement with the plan as noted, time would be allowed for the Whitehead's to work with their neighbors Smith agreed with Schroeder.