02-18-1997 Planning Commission Minutes

Home Browse Search

• MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON FEBRUARY 18, 1997 ( #2 - Saga Hill Access - Continued) Gaffron reviewed alternate access routes. An access from Wildhurst would require a driveway coming up a steep hill to the west to Highview. The City Engineer has indicated this alternate is not preferred. The County has said there would be no acceptable location along Co. Rd. 1.9 at which an access could enter from the west to serve Lots 4, 5, and 6. Also, that would affect the lots on North Shore Drive negatively. There is some platted right -of -way from the north. A back lot configuration was created along with some dedications of road from 50' width to 25' width. The problem with this alternate is in serving Lots 4 and 5. County Road 151 would have to be lowered as it lacks the required site distance to the east. Gaffron indicated that there appears to be no good alternate for access other than from the south, possibly via a relocated Garden Lane. He noted the possibility of trading parcels from the park land with the Hennessey parcel, which is Lot 3, but it could be an expensive proposition. Another option would be to build a short roadway using Garden Lane from the south and another from the north. Garden Lane could be extended northward and then jog to the west as the tax forfeit parcel does not have limitations placed on its use. This would allow for a driveway up to Lots 4, 5, and 6. Gafiron asked the Commission to consider whether any of the alternates are viable options, whether Garden Lane should be developed, and if the ravine should be avoided. He noted the Park Commission has discussed the issues as well. Lindquist opened the discussion for public comment. Jeanne Rostad, 4650 Tonkaview Lane, said she lives next to Lot 1, which she also owns. She is a 14 year resident of the area. Rostad said she would like to see access by various roads without impacting the open space in the middle any more than is necessary. She felt Lots 1 and 2 could be accessed by a private drive and another private drive for Lots 4, 5, and 6. Gaffron informed her that the code would require a private road for the three lots and the standards would be difficult to meet as well as expensive. Rostad indicated there was a steep slope to the east. She felt the ravine should be left alone. Milt Krelitz, represented Mr. Soskin, owner of Lot 3, which is a 7 acre parcel adjacent to Garden Lane. Krelitz said Soskin purchased the property with the understanding that Garden Lane was a dedicated road and could be developed. He noted it would be difficult to make use of the land without Garden Lane being developed. He indicated Garden Lane could be used by Lots 1 and 2 as well as other adjoining lots.