10-17-1994 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINirn S OF THt ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION M! I TING HtU) ON SEPIEMBFR W. IW (#3) Ucm #1907* D PeteTH>ivtn:tlre - ('omiiaKd Cialfrcm suied ptiipcrtv is Uvatcd South of Ba^-snlc Road. Fast of C\>unty ITie iniual request was in%t>l>imi m lots to include the Gertie and Olsi>n properties i\pp4icani’s base been worVing wuh staff on this project The C'itVs two pnmarv goals hase been to aeate surtaWe access kxatKWS and draintiekis that would the t»% slope Iniiit for mound systems At this point, applicant wishes to separate the Geffre residence from the applicatHMi. split off the Olson house from their 17 5 acre pared » it can^ sold and designate the lenuinder of the Olson property as Outlol A to be platted h:et If this IS done, the i .ty would need to a)iestnct Outlol A to be created for friture deselopmenl ofdv bVeiiuirc Park Dedication Fees due when Outlet A is platted, and c)rnjimc hituie platt ing of Olson propertv to conlomi to the lot width, area, and setback sta^ards ot the RR IliVoning District The desclopcr is antiapating submittal ot a four or five kit plat later this year The applicant submitted a revision stating the simple lot diiision would not allow a cur^«l line The surveyor created i new oullot for a future driveway D Peterson said notices had been sent out for the f.uure five-lot division This drawing is to ^ow the City- what the current plans are for splmmg off the house The revision changed the .0 setback from the deck to ^0‘ Copies of this revision were handed v>ui to ( ommtssion members 1 Peterson stated the reason tor the application at this time was to fanlitate the sale ot the Olson residence A review of the septic evaluation had been done, and D Peterson ^d the conceptual tivc-lot plan needed to be revised to tour lots A lot division or plat tor the four-lot revision would require time that the Olson's do not have if they wish Uv do.se on their property D Peterson also remarked that a legal mauc-r is in question whethw the outlet is needed At this time. D Peterson is asking tor approval tor one existing lot and an oullot which would l>e unlHiildable without a plat Smith asked if this would be setting a precedent, and GatVron stated that the City would nonnallv approve only an outlol that hxs an access D Peterson said Getlie to be les-s than two acres and therefore, non-conforming, without Outlet A deeded fust to Gertie GatVron said this only makes sense m the big sub division picture I o gam the eascmienl that the GvtTre lot would provide. Nolan askcxJ D Peterson vvhy the trade o properties under consideration is not being done at this tune ^ . . done before the next meeting but. meanwhile, the Olson sale would tall through, and askc only for approval or denial from the Planning Commission in order to move this matter forward to the (itv Council Nolan asked about the desirability ot having the acccs. t outlet instead of County Road S t GatVron said the County will rcsiuire access to both houses to be on the new road. GatVron statcxl a conceptual agreement would need conditions atUichcd to it.