05-26-1998 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

NHNUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION meeting held on march 16, 1998(#2 - #2340 Robert Waade - Continued) Gaffi-on reviewed the general comments in the memorandum, #1-3 He noted that no additional sewer charges are needed. The property will be served by pnvate wells. He concluded that only the back lot has riparian access. Covenants and restnctions ^^nll be placed on the chain of title to ensure that no riparian rights are given to the duplex property. The pond will be located north of the boundary line between lots 1 and 2. The applicant has asked to receive credit for the pond towards area for the back lot. Gaffron saidlhe intent of the code \z * o provide additional buffenng, and he believes this is being accomplished and supported uia credit. Gaffron reviewed the issues for uiscussion, #1-9 on pages 5 md 6 of the memo. He recommended the road be private. He noted the code only allows I"® ‘°f ® served by a driveway instead of three as requested. A CUP is required to fill ^ o the lot line. Gaffron asked if the Planning Commission agrees with Staff in recommending the credit of unused 75-250' hardcover towards the 250-500’ zone. Waade had no additional comments at this time. Russell Norum. 3264 North Shore Drive, noted the location of his property^ He said he has no philosophical objections to the application and is open to being ^ variancL and conditional use permits. He asked if the pnvate road existing land to access the homes from CoRd 5 1 . He is concerned with the road being cut in noting his own house has had problems with settling and the road will be Norum said he also is troubled with the ponding. A large pole building is located nearby that resulted in flooding in the area to the north of his property. effect the ponding would have to drainage. Norum also indicated there had been a access road to the west of the property at one time and questioned what happened to that access for the subject property. He noted there are water pipes running under lot three other lots; their location is unknown. While he believes the new construction aid property values, he is concerned with additional noise and lighting. Smith clarified the concerns voiced by Nonim, namely, 1) access to the additional erosion problems, and 3) why the previous access svil. not be utilized. .Norum said he does not object to the road itself but to further erosion. He felt the new road would be satisfactory if improvement was made to ponding. Gaffron remarked that the impact from the driveway location so near Norum’s property is significant due to the steep cuts and needs to be resolved. The reviewed this issue. Gaffron said retaining w?- may be required. Gaffron indicated the westerly access driveway never had any formal status Its location is poor due to sig^ lines along the hill. The County has concluded that the proposed access is best in te sight lines but suggested the hill be cut down.