Project Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNlNG CO:M:MJSSION MEETING HELD ON SEPTE"MBER 19 1994 , (#3) Item #1967-D. Peterson/Geffre -Continued Gaffron stated property is located South of Bayside Road, East of County Road 19. The initial request was involving six lots to include the Geffre and Olson properties. Applicant's have been working with staff on this project. The City's two primary goals have been to create suitable access locations and drain:fields that would meet the 6% slope limit for mound systems. At this point, applicant wishes to separate the Geffre residence from the application, split off the Olson house from their 17.5 acre parcel, so it can be sold and designate the remainder of the Olson property as Outlot A to be platted later. If this is done, the City would need to a)restrict Outlot A to be created for future development only, b)require Park Dedication Fees due when Outlot A is platted, and c)require future platting of Olson property to conform to the lot width, area, and setback standards of the RR-IB Zoning District. The developer is anticipating submittal of a four or five lot plat later this year. The applicant submitted a revision stating the simple lot division would not allow a curved line. The surveyor created a new outlot for a future driveway. D. Peterson said notices had been sent out for the future five-lot division. This drawing is to show the City what the current plans are for splitting off the house. The revision changed the 30' setback from the deck to 50'. Copies of this revision were handed out to Commission members. D. Peterson stated the reason for the application at this time was to facilitate the sale of the Olson residence. A review of the septic evaluation had been done, and D. Peterson said the conceptual five-lot plan needed to be revised to four lots. A lot division or plat for the four-lot revision would require time that the OJson's do not have if they wish to close on their property. D. Peterson also remarked that a legal matter is in question whether the outlot is needed. At this time, D. Peterson is asking for approval for one existing lot and an outlot which would be unbuildable without a plat. Smith asked if this would be setting a precedent, and Gaffron stated that the City would nonnally approve only an outlot that has an access. D. Peterson said this would cause Geffre to be less than two acres and therefore, non-confonning, without Outlot A dee<led first to Geffre. Gaffron said this only makes sense in the big sub-division picture. To gain the easement that the Geffre lot would provide, Nolan asked D. Peterson why the trade of properties under consideration is not being done at this time. Peterson said this would be done before the next meeting but, meanwhile, the Olson sale would fall through, and asked only for approval or denial from the Planning Commission in order to move this matter forward to the City Council. Nolan asked about the desirability of having the access to the outlot i~i:ead of County Road 84. Gaffron said the County will require access to both houses to be on the new road. Gaffron stated a conceptual agreement would need conditions attached to it. 2