Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION <br />MEETING HELD ON MAY 15.1995 <br />(#13 - #1S00 Michael Plank - Continued) <br />Plank asked ifapproval could be given under the 1993 standards. Lindquist said the <br />standard of today need to be upheld. <br />Peterson asked for Plank's opinion on a road with a cul-de-sac. Peterson said the Planning <br />Commission would probably look finrorably on giving a width variance in this <br />circumstance. Plank said a road would take more space and questioned what would <br />happen if changes were to be made to Watertown Road. <br />Nolan said the approval could stipulate what would trigger a change if the (hive were to <br />come off of Watertown Road. Referring to Exhibit D-6. Peterson said if lot Y (the future <br />3rd lot) has a home with h, then a road would be needed. Prior to this, the road would <br />only be dedicated Plank wouMinaintain control of lots X and Y and road postponed. If <br />X or Y were to be built on, the road would be constructed. Lot X m^ n^ aeons off a <br />cul-de-sac if Watertown Road were irtqwoved or its status upgrade to a level whee <br />limiting individual driveway access onto it is critical. <br />Gaffion questioned whether the City could require the Applicant to dose their drive from <br />Watertown Road under the current lot line rearrang ement a|I M l. I Plank ask why he <br />would warn to do this. Corranisriooers responded that when appBcanfs derire a change m <br />their properties, this is the time Ibr leverage in gaining solutions to ftiture "what-iP <br />questKNis. <br />UndqM»«* said an eefe«*e«t covenant would be rerpured as a deed restriction on the sale of <br />lot X and development of lot Y. The width variance would be a non-issue. Other <br />commissioners agreed. <br />Lhxhpiist asked if the City could require Lot X to access off a cul-de-sac in the fiiture. <br />Gaffion said if Lot 1 (X/^ were divided, the City could then change the access to a road, <br />and the road could be buUt for a level of 3 users. Plank asked if this issue could be <br />addressed at that future time. The comrnissiotiers inforitied him that it was being <br />addressed now and was consistent with a 3-k>t divirioiL <br />Gaffion said the 1988 resolution v^ch allowed lot line to happen, included a statement <br />that the developer could use the outlot to serve lot 3 and a fiiture lot split from it (Y and <br />Z). Lindquist and Berg said yes, but the code has changed, and that s^ never occurred. <br />Plank was reminded that if lot 2 were sold now, there would likdy not be enough land to <br />have another lot. <br />Nolan commented that future commissions and coundb might view the property <br />differently and Watertown Road might not be upgraded. Any future changes would be <br />decided <m at time of friture applications^ but, tte time to gain the easement is now.