06-16-1997 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING FEBRUARY 19, 1991 (#1)ZONING FILE #1619-WHITEHEAD CONTINUED access, and we would put a covenant in the deed, for Lot 4 directly out onto Lyman Avenue. There are great sight lines and it is the most logical place for a driveway. The real issue is what should be done with Lyman Avenue. We purchased this property after it was rezoned specifically because the City had deem.sd it to be special and unique. Everybody that lives on Lyman Avenue likes it the way it is. We like it small so people have to slow down, which is beneficial to children. Those of us living on the road have never experienced any problems. In response to Mike's memo, wherein he states that the road must be upgraded, the City code requires upgrading only when it is necessary for additional development. I don't believe it gives you the power of upgrading for existing development. The additional development here is only two houses. Lot 4 has ^no affect on the portion of Lyman to which yea are referring. The road is very much in keeping with the rural character of the area. V7ith regard to a cul-de-sac, the City Code states that it shall be located at the end of a dead-end road. That is where the City has it. There does not seem to be any reason to locate a cul-de-sac in the middle of the road. On page two of his memo, Mike states that the development capability of the property is limited. In my opinion, the lots conform, and if there is a limited development potential, that is my problem. The pond on the property was dug by Harold Eisencramer and is a breeding ground for wood ducks. V7e would like to keep the pond, and I do not believe it is necessary to maintain setbacks from it because it is not a designated wetland. The pond has never overflowed during the 22 years that I have owned the property. I would next like to address Mike's comments regarding access. As he states in paragraph #6, Loc 4 is proposed to be served by a single driveway existing directly to Lyman Avenue. With regard to Outlot B serving the two interior lots, Walter Gregory has assured me that we have adequate area to conform with the Code and is feasible. We do have an overhead to show what we would do in the event we need additional land. Section Four in the Transportation Chapter of the Comprehensive Plan states as a matter of policy that most new rural lots will be directly served by privately owned and maintained roadways. Vie are not interested in public road or public maintenance. The Plan also states that joint driveways are allowed in rural areas wi--h a maximum of three residence per driveway. Outlot B v/ould only serve two houses and would therefore qualify under the City s Comprehensive Plan to be served by a private driveway. We would be happy to provide an outlot if that is what the City needs. - 3 -