Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION <br />MEETING HELD ON MAY 15, 1995 <br />( #13 - #1800 Michael Plank - Continued) <br />Plank asked if approval could be given under the 1993 standards. Lindquist said the <br />standards of today need to be upheld. <br />Peterson asked for Plank's opinion on a road with a cul -de -sac. Peterson said the Planning <br />Commission would probably look favorably on giving a width variance in this <br />circumstance. Plank said a road would take more space and questioned what would <br />happen if changes were to be made to Watertown Road. <br />Nolan said the approval could stipulate what would trigger a change if the drive were to <br />come off of Watertown Road. Referring to Exhibit D -b, Peterson said if lot Y (the future <br />3rd lot) has a home with it, then a road would be needed. Prior to this, the road would <br />only be dedicated. Plank would maintain control of lots X and Y and road postponed. If <br />X or Y were to be built on, the road would be constructed. Lot X might need access off a <br />cul-de -sac if Watertown Road were improved or its status upgraded to a level where <br />limiting individual driveway access onto it is critical. <br />Gaffron questioned whether the City could require the Applicant to close their drive from <br />Watertown Road under the current lot line rearrangement application. Plank ask why he <br />would want to do this. Commissioners responded that when applicant's desire a change in <br />their properties, this is the time for leverage in gaining solutions to future "what -if' <br />questions. <br />Lindquist said an easement covenant would be required as a deed restriction on the sale of <br />lot X and development of lot Y. The width variance would be a non - issue. Other <br />commissioners agreed. <br />Lindquist asked if the City could require Lot X to access off a cul -de -sac in the future. <br />Gaffron said if Lot 1 (X(Y) were divided, the City could then change the access to a road, <br />and the road could be built for a level of 3 users. Plank asked if this issue could be <br />addressed at that future time. The commissioners informed him that it was being <br />addressed now and was consistent with a 3 4ot division. <br />Gaffron said the 1988 resolution which allowed lot line to happen, included a statement <br />that the developer could use the outlot to serve lot 3 and a future lot split from it (Y and <br />Z). Lindquist and Berg said yes, but the code has changed, and that split never occurred. <br />Plank was reminded that if lot 2 were sold now, there would likely not be enough land to <br />have another lot. <br />Nolan commented that future commissions and councils might view the property <br />differently and Watertown Road might not be upgraded. Any future changes would be <br />. decided on at time of future applications, but, the time to gain the easement is now. <br />18 <br />