05-15-1995 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON MAY 15, 1995 (#13 - #1800 Michael Plank - Continued) On Exhibit C, proposed Lot B will consist of 6.2 acres. Gaflron noted that in Staffs opinion, new lots are created if this lot line rearrangement occurs If Planning Commission concurs, then Lot Bwould need to meet the 7.5 acre requirement Neither Lot B proposed now or Lot C proposed for the future would meet the 300* width standard at the front line where they would abut the outlet To avoid the backlot acreage issue, a 6 2 acre lot that abuts a platted 50’ road with a 100 ’ cul-de-sac would not be considered a backlot and would not have to meet the 150% width and area requirement There would still be the need for lot width variances on the cul-de- sac. Gaffron noted that with the Highway 12 studies underway, there could be changes in the status and character of Watertown Road in the future Also, Planning commission is reviewing the current status of driveways in regards to the threshold number of driveways required for upgrading to road status Gaffron also asked the following questions; Does the road have to be built if it’s platted’’ If, in the future, a third driveway (from the old house on Lot 2) becomes the third driveway using the outlot, will it have to be upgraded to road status? How will expanding the outlot to a platted road and cul-de-sac width affect the acrejqje needed for splitting off an additional lot? Plank said he bought the original 25 acres in 1976. He indicated the intent at that time was 4 total lots. One lot was divided off in 1977 and remained the same for the next 11 years. In 1986, he noted there were 20 acres along with the old house. There were 3 potential lots lefr at that time The house that is now on Lot 3 was moved in, and since timing was of the essence, a lot line was drawn rather quickly. Plank would now like to keep Lot 2 with the additional land but would like to swing the lot line downward. Nolan asked if Plank does not plan to subdivide further, why he would not keep the lot at 7+ acres instead of 6+ acres. Plank responded that he did not believe it would be wise to give up a possible lot, and the wetlands need to be considered in the calculations. Lindquist explained what he perceived the situation to be. The Applicant is looking for 3 total lots, but is not now at the point of creating the third lot. There are now two houses on a potential 3 lot property, but the 3rd lot would need a variance to make it a 3rd lot. These lots are not platted. There is current a backlot (Lot 3), which conforms to the 7-1^ acre requirement. If it were reduced to 6.2 acres, it then would not conform. Lindquist asked if the road could be platted without actually putting the road in, or is the commission willing to grant a variance when the land is in the 5-acre zone.