06-10-1996 Council Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON JUNE 10, 1996 ( #6 - #2136 Greenfield Corporation - Continued) • Mabusth continued that there are designated wetlands along with type 1 and 2 wetlands, which are not part of the City's mapping but require protective covenants. The applicant will be asked to provide detailed plans for access to lot 6. Access for lots 1, 3, and 4 will be served by road outlot A and lots 2, 5, and 6 from two separate curb cuts off of North Shore Drive. The existing residential drive to lot 6 encroaches on the property to the south, is unsafe, and will be eliminated. A new shared access will be located on the shared lot line between lots 5 and 6. A detailed plan of this access will be required from the developer. The 26' setback must be maintained from the wetlands and 20' setback from the drainfield area. The key issue for this proposal is access. The applicant wants to preserve the 3 obvious building sites and presented a similar plan outlining this arrangement in the sketch plan review. Based on the location of septic sites (2, 3, and 4), location of wetlands, and topography, the developer has asked to create a new curb cut at North Shore Drive and create a private road that would serve only 3 of the 6 lots. The code provides construction standards for typical section for road serving 3 -6 units. The comprehensive plan is less detailed. It notes the general desire of the City to have private, internal roads, instead of new curb cuts. In this proposal, there would be 1 new curb cut at North Shore Drive. Lot width variances would also be needed for lots 1, 3, and 4. The 12 septic test sites reveal the need for mound systems. Mark Gronberg reported that the property consists of 655' at property line adjacent to • Bayside Road. The County has asked for 17 additional feet for County Road 19 for a total dedication of 50'. This would allow 200' for each lot. Gronberg said, if the cul -de- sac was extended westward, the lot widths could be achieved. Gronberg did not care to do so. It would result in the elimination of lot 1's building site. Gronberg noted the steep slopes. Gronberg remarked that the frontage along Outlot B would give lot 4 required frontage and argues whether a lot width variance is required. CoRds 19 and 84 also serve as frontage for lot 1. Lot 3 is located at the end of the cul -de -sac and would need a lot width variance. Kelley asked if the proposal could meet the ordinance requirements if the cul -de -sac was extended. Gronberg said this is true. The variances are being asked for in order to pull back the cul -de -sac to put in the road for the adjoining property. Hurr questioned whether there was a need for a full cul -de -sac or for outlot A? If lots 1 and 3 shared a driveway and lot 4 came off of the outlot road, only a temporary cul -de- sac would be necessary. At this time, there is no idea when the lot to the east would be developed. There are no building plans for the outlot. It would be just graded and seeded. •