Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION <br />MEETING HELD ON FEBRUARY 18, 1997 <br />• <br />( #2 - Saga Hill Access - Continued) <br />Lindquist indicated that none of the options are soundly acceptable. <br />McMillan asked Gaffron to explain the zoning and sewer availability. Gaffron indicated <br />the homes along Wildhurst and Tonkaview are served by sewer. If sewer were to be <br />installed, it would come up from Garden Lane or from Wildhurst. He noted Lots 4 and 5 <br />were within the MUSA. To the east of the lots, the property is outside of the MUSA, as <br />is Lot 6. The topography of the area is not conducive to being served by septic systems. <br />The property within the MUSA is in the 1 acre single family zoning district, and the <br />remaining property outside the MUSA is in the 2 acre residential zoning. Gaffron <br />indicated that the lot line rearrangement being considered for Lots 4 and 5 calls for septic. <br />McMillan asked who would pay for the sewer for Lots 4 and 5 if it were to occur. <br />Gaffron indicated that the benefiting properties would pay for the sewering as is the case <br />with roadways. <br />McMillan questioned whether Lots 4 and 5 should be in the 2 -acre zoning. Gaffron said if <br />the choice was made not to be sewered and have mound systems, the City would probably <br />allow that to occur, but noted the access issue must be resolved first. He indicated the lot <br />line rearrangement for Lots 4 and 5 was tabled pending access issue resolution, which is <br />• directly related to the park access issue. <br />Lindquist said he would prefer to have more information from the experts and would like <br />Staff to reconsider the issues and have the Engineer review them also. Gaffron informed <br />Lindquist that the Council has asked the Planning Commission for direction on whether <br />they would like the corridor to come through the park or another option. He did not feel <br />it was likely the Staff would come up with any other options than those that have been <br />presented. Lindquist noted the residents were not in favor of developing Garden Lane <br />either, but the issue of having access for buildable lots needs to be determined. <br />Kathryn Kasprick said she thought the Park Commission had made a recommendation. <br />McMillan indicated that the Park Commission recommended Garden Lane not divide the <br />park land but did not determine any concrete solution. The Park Commission had <br />suggested Garden Lane be extended part way and an alternate be found for the lots to the <br />north. Gaffron reviewed the routes Garden Lane could take noting the financial and <br />aesthetic tradeoffs. He also indicated there has been no conclusion drawn regarding the <br />future of the park land. <br />Hawn inquired about the interest in trading land by the owner of Lot 3. Gaffron said the <br />owner has owned the property a long time and had expressed interest in building on the <br />property but has not formalized any application. The owner would like access to the <br />• property. Gaffron said the City has not contacted the property owner regarding a possible <br />trade. <br />11 <br />