06-19-1995 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON MAY 15, 1995 (#13 - #1SOO Michad PUnk - Continued) On Exhibit C, proposed Lot B win consist of 6.2 acres. Giflfron noted that in Staffs opinion, new lots are created ifthis lot line rearrangement occurs IfPlanning Commission concurs, then Lot Bwould need to meet the 7 5 acre requirement Nather Lot B proposed now or Lot C proposed for the future would mea the 300* width standard at the front line where they would abut the uutlot. To avoid the backlot acreage issue, a 6.2 acre lot that abutt a platted 50* road mthz \W cul-de-sac would not be considered a backlot and would not hav e to meet the 150% width and area requirement There would still be the need for lot width variances on the cul-de- Gaffron noted that with the Highway 12 studies underway, there could be changes m 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. Gaffixm also asked the followup (giestions: 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 thud driveway using Uie outlot, will it have to be upgraded to road status? How wiB expanding the outlot to a platted road and cul-de-sac width affect the acreage needed for splitting off an additional lot? Plank said he bought the or^mal 25 acres in 1976. He indicated the inteitt 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. Thro were 3 potential lots left 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 fiirtlwr, why he would not keep the lot at 7+ acres ipffte«4 of 6+ acres. Plank responded that he (ttd not bdieve it would be wise to pve up a possible lot, and the wetlands need to be considered in the calcidations. Lindquist explained what he perc«ved the situation to be. The Applicant is looking for 3 total lots, but is not now at the point of creatii^ 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 arc not platted. There is current a backlot (Lot 3), which conforms to the 7-1/2 acre requirement Ifit were reduced to 6.2 acres, it th« would not conft^ 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.