Laserfiche WebLink
minutes of the orono planning commission <br />meeting held on may 19,1997 <br />(#17 - #2240 Jim Waters - Continued) <br />Another issue is the length of the road system. There would be one way in to the hom« <br />with no additional way out creating a possible puWic safety issue with the cul-d^sac and <br />Wildhurst greatly exceeding the lOOC limit There is a possibUity for a connection to <br />West Branch, though it is not the applicant's intention. If this connection is not <br />permanent, it possibly could be used by emeigcncy vehicles. There are also topography <br />issues to consider. <br />Lindquist questioned why the need for a long driveway with parallel roads. Gaflfron smd it <br />was due to the steepness of the property. Waters indicated that he and residents would <br />not desire front walk-outs. A change would require retaining walls and loss of trees. <br />Aesthetically, this proposal would give the impression of traveling down a country lane as <br />the homes to ’the south would not be viewed until you swing southward. It would also <br />give the impression of two acre zoning according to Waters. <br />Lindquist asked for comments regarding a road to West Bi^ch. Waters referred to <br />drawing C-2. This option shows a development not requiring rezoning. While it proposes <br />the development accessing through Garden Lane or Highview, it does not address the <br />issue of the passive park and low traffic. Waters says drawing C-1 addresses these issues <br />while maintaining the country feel of the property. He noted that Wildhurst access would <br />increase the length of the cul-de-sac by 1800'. Waters said an approach from West Branch <br />would be satisfactory if a lot is not lost. He indicated he would provide an easement. If <br />service vehicles are an issue. Waters said it would probably require a hard road surface. <br />Waters said it could become a service lane only. A gravel road could be used down <br />Garden Lane to serve the Hennessey lot. <br />Lindquist noted the problem with both one acre and two acre zoning. He felt establishing <br />all one acre zoning might not be accepted by the neighbors. Gaffron indicated the re­ <br />zoning would change the number of lots by only one lot. He indicated the zoning change <br />would be sewer driven, not neighborhood driven. Gaffron said it was his opinion tlut the <br />property is undevelopable with septic systems as there are limited sites. He feels it is <br />logical and reasonable to bring this property into the MUSA and not change the zoning. <br />McMillan said she would consider possibly exchanging lots but did not feel it would be a <br />good poUcy to do as suggested. She inquired what the gain would be. Gaflfron said the <br />gain would be the ability to develop the property. He noted lots 12-17 (Van Sloun and <br />Morgan properties) without sewer are not buildable. If changed to sewered lots, there <br />would be 4-5 lots on the Sollner property, possibly two on the Van Sloane property, 2-3 <br />on the Morgan propeny, with three additional lots to the east. Schroeder noted that this <br />assumes the Met Council will agree with changing the MUSA line.