09-19-1988 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

J.,I m mik'r,i Administrator hore Drive West - reel into two 7 acre air 2 acre unsewered. < Across Co. Rd. f X TOTAL 3.004 AC 4.808 9.402 17.214 m isting trench type orth of the existing ig trench drainfield le dry weather? our em in the past and in the relatively ms determined by the lie sites for septic additional area from roposed area comprises concurs with this sntly proposedf has a additional acreage. the proposed Outlet A. ,11 r- k. m f- ■ iv^'X :'XAt-4 . A re"- e-^v. staff would note that if applicants* intent is to build a house within the Zone File #1301 July 14r 1988 Page Two of Four large parcel* it should not be designated as an outlet but as a separate lot that is large enough to be potentially divided in the future. Conceptually* an outlet is only designated when a parcel is intended to not be used until further developed. Staff would note that all of the sites tested on the property require mound systems. This is not unusual considering the Kilkenny loam-type soil located in this area of Orono. 3. Note the "gerrymandered" configuration of proposed Lot 2. It is staff's understanding that this configuration came about because the applicants are compelled through a Court Order to sell a 2-acre parcel to Donald and Judy Kempf as a result of a Purchase Agreement entered into by Kempfs and Whites in 1984. You will note that Lot 1 just barely contains 2 acres of dry* buildable land. Staff has dra%fn in the building envelope for Lot 2* and suggests that while there may be a feasible house location directly south of the Langert exception* a more probable and attractive building site is east of the drainfield sites tested within the 1.3 acre recommended additional parcel. It would seem to staff that the east/west line between Lots 1 and 2 could be straightened out to provide a more useful potential secondary alternate drainfield site for Lot 1* while still leaving a plus-or-minus 150 foot wide corridor to the rear for Lot 2. % 4. The applicants have not provided a topographic map of the property. The topographic section of the US6S Maps is of a scale that it has little value in discussions of the development of this property. Based on the fact that the property contains a significant area of wetlands* staff feels that it is appropriate for Planning Commission to require that a topographic map of the entire property be provided. 5. In Exhibits G* 1 through 3, you are provided with a plat map sketch showing existing development in the area* showing the proposed division and the probable future request for development of Outlot A without the need for an interior road* and finally a conceptual diagram of how the areas to the east of County Road 19, south of Bayside Road and north of North Arm Drive West will likely develop under the 2-acre standard. Given the existing developments along North Arm Drive West* staff would see North Arm Lane extending northward and then west to County Road 19* with the outlot road being taken from properties on either side. It probably is not feasible to ask for dedication of roadway south of the existing White hibuse* since it is only 45* north of the existing side lot line. Staff would also anticipate a northerly extension up to Bayside Road that would allow 2 acre lot development on either side of it. Looking at exhibit G-3* the question becomes* is there a need to dedicate property within the currently proposed plat for future access? Summary of Issues - 1. The north lot line of proposed Lot 2 is intended by the applicant % •/V- w V m'Am ^ t