09-11-2000 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR JANUARY 19, 2000 r i • (11^2550 Charles Van Eeckhout, Continued) Weinberger inquired whether the land area calculations were determined by a surveyor. Berg Indicated they were, with the revised calculations indicating 13.7 acres dry buildable. Weinberger stated the new numbers under a standard plat or PRO must meet all the minimum lot size requirements, with 13.7 acres dry buildable meaning the developer may have six lots in this subdivision. Berg stated this subdivision surpasses the City's ordinances for a standard sewered lot. Berg pointed out they are only three-tenths of an acre less than 14 acres dry buildable. Berg stated one area within this subdivision was artificially lowered a number of yeans ago, which may not become flooded. Stoddard stated it would still be defined as a wetland. Van Eeckhout commented part of the wetland is located above the 100 year floodplain and would in all likelihood never be wet. Van Eeckhout stated in his opinion this area would not have needed to be included In the wetland calculations. Stoddard stated the Planning Commission reviews these applications based upon the information that is submitted by the Applicant. Stoddard commented at the previous meeting the Planning Commission had focused on the size of the lots and h lu requested the developer look at increasing the lot size as much as possible. Kluth commented he likes the bigger lots In the northeast comer. Van Eeckhout stated in his view this is a good plan, and requested the Planning Commission act on his application. Hawn requested the Applicant address the issue of access. Van Eeckhout stated he has paid Mr. Dunn three times for the same easement. Van Eeckhout stated he has had an attorney review this easement as well as his title insurance company, who have both assured him that he is legally entitled to construct a road over this easement to serve his subdivision. Tom Barrett, City Attorney, noted he has attempted to review all the documents relating to this item. Barrett stated there appears to be a utility easement over the southern portion of the property as well as the driveway easement. Barrett stated in his view the problem with tlie document agreeing to the driveway easement is it does not further address any other issues, such as whether this driveway easement should support access to other residences. Barrett recommended approval of this application be made contingent upon final resolution of this issue. Barrett stated anotner issue dealing with the access is whether the City would allow a private road as an access. Barrett commented he has questions whether the driveway easement would allow the developer to build a public road. David Berkowski, South Brown Road, inquired what the additional ten foot area represented. Page 11