06-19-1995 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON MARCH 20, 1995 TWs pUn is for a division of a two-loi subdivision ongmafly ap^oved m 1985 There is ademule area to meet requirements of a back lot division with acres. The appljcant^ was advised in 1985 that future access considerations requited access conforming to a a- lot subdivision The City acquired no underlying access easement over the roadAay in the adjacent RLS division The owner of the RLS said he would nev er approve any easement or curb cut. This results in only two options, A and B. tor the applic^, not ttaee as proposed Mabusth reported that the rusting dnveway comes very close to the 26' ^back is required A separate conditional use and variance apphcauon was hied wnh the original subdivision application that would allow encroachmem of proteaed wetl^d for drive to nonh The bam on the propeny was placed m front ot the pnncipal structure also requiring a variance review The drainage comes from both the nonheast and northwest into a large wetland and continues draining through a drainageway along the driveway to French Lake Basin wetland. Option A caUs for the use of the existing driveway to serve all three. The northern lot meets the back lot requirement but a 30* driveway outlot can only serve 2 lots per code. There is 2.12 acres to the west of the easement maintaining the required continuous - acres for the new building envelope. Option B calls for a 60* wide private road with a cul-de-sac along the «stem border. Major portions will be located within a designated wetland area. Mabusth said that in 1985, the applicants chose to develop a shared access dnve and did not attempt to acquire an access off the RLS drive. Rowlette r.cttfd that this application is similar to the problem faced with the Clomier application previously discussed. Rowlette suggested a possible new curb cut off of Fox Street to service new lot Schroeder said this would require a new curb cut. Schroeder also said that during discussions with the neighbors, the property was always planned to have 3 lots. Nolan asked about upgrading of the existing driveway to a road. Mabusth responded that the setback from a wetland prevented this option. Due to the narrowness of the available land for the driveway, it must remain a driveway but does need upgrading. A loop turnaround was noted to be in lot 2 for emergency vehicles. The Applicant, BiU Smith, would like to keep the driveway, making necessary improvements, and possibly upgrading it with a passing area if necessary. He preferred the aesthetically-pleasing look of the driveway to a cul-de-sac road. Smith said that one possible buyer asked about keeping the bam. Commissioners informed Smith that 3 acres are needed to allow the keeping of one horse.