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