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) Plank asked if approvaU could be given under the 1993 tAandards Lindquist said the standards of today need to be upheld Peterson asked for Plank's opinion on a road with a cul-de-sac Peterson said the Planning Commisaon would probably look favorably on giving a width vviance in this circumstance Plank said a road would take more space and questioned what would happen if changes were to be made to Watertown Road. Nolan said the approval could stipulate what would trigger a change if the drive were to come off of Watertown Road. Referring to Exhibit D-6, Peterson said if lot Y (the future 3rd lot) has a home with it, then a road would be needed Prior to this, the road would only be dedicated Plank would maintain ctmtrol of lots X and Y and road postponed. If X or Y were to be built on, the road would be constructed. Lot X might n^ access off a cul-de-sac if Watertown Road were improved or its status upgraded to a level where limiting individufU driveway access onto it is critical. Gaflron questioned whether the City could require the Applicant to close their drive from Watertown Road under the current lot line rearrangement application. Plank ask why he would want to do this Commissioners responded that when applicant's desire a change in their properties, this is the time for ieveriq^e in gaining solutions to future "what-iC questions. Lindquist said an easement covenant would be required as a deed restriction on the sale of lot X and development of lot Y. The width variance would be a non-issue. Other commissioners agreed. Lindquist asked if the City could require Lot X to access off a cul-de-sac in the future. Gaffron said if Lot I (X/Y) were divided, the City could then change the access to a road, and the road could be built for a level of 3 users. Plank asked if this issue could be addressed at that future time. The commissioners informed him that it was being addressed now and was consistent with a 3-lot division. Gaffron said the 1988 resolution which allowed lot line to happen, included a statement that the developer could use the outlot to serve lot 3 and a future lot split from it (Y and Z) Lindquist and Berg said yes, but the code has changed, and that split never occurred. Plank was reminded that if lot 2 were sold now, there would likely not be enough land to have another lot. Nolan commented that future commissions and councils might view the property differently and Watertown Road might not be upgraded. Any future changes would be decided on at time of future applications, but, the time to gain the easement is now.