Laserfiche WebLink
ftllNUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO Cm' COUNCIL <br />MEETING HELD ON JULY 10,1995 <br />(#7 - #2029 William Smith - Continued) <br />A lot spHt was approv ed in 1986 At the time of that resolution, it was determined that <br />any future division of Lot 1 would require legal access be provided to all three lots <br />through a private road platted on the east side. There is no control over Lot 2 as it has <br />another owner. Filling of wetlands and mitigation would be required if a road were to be <br />created. This would also result in the removal of large evergreen trees Another option <br />would be looking at a front lot/tack lot configuration with a 30' outlet on the east side <br />This would have minimal impact on the wetlands A connecting driveway would have to <br />be provided from the outlet to serve the northern lot This would involve encroachment <br />of wetlands to get to the building envelope on the west side. Lot 2 must use the <br />driveway for access. It was further noted that the area standards are met. <br />Mabusth reported the Planning Commission felt there would be a negative impact on <br />proposed Lot 2 if drive was to the east and a new’ drive encroaching the new lot for Lot <br />2. A curb cut on the west side was considered but code requirenients would make this <br />difficult. It was felt this would conflict with the comprehensive plan The applicant has <br />asked to use the existing easement driveway for all three lots. After taking in the fire <br />department needs, the Planning Commission recommended widening of the drive from <br />10' to 12'. The drive was approved in 1986 at 12 ’ It was lurther recommended that the <br />portion of the drive beyond the curb cut for Lot 2 be upgraded to a width of 18’ and an <br />outlot be designated through Lot 2 to define the driveway. <br />Planning Commissioner Sandra Smith said the application had been tabled to allow the <br />applicant to contact the homeowners of Fox Run to inquire of use of their private road <br />for access to the lots The homeowners have no interest in granting Smith access from <br />their road. The City has no easement or recourse to make this option happen. <br />Kelley noted the costs involved if the City were to initiate taking Fox Run and upgrading <br />it to a 24 ’ paved road with a cul-de-sac to serve these lots. Kelley thought the City's <br />opportunity to do this was in 198o. <br />Callahan asked Mabusth what the 1986 resolution stated Mabusth said the resolution <br />asked that all three lots would need legal access Callahan voiced the possibility ol <br />requiring this and the need to live up to the rules established. Jabbour cited the City's <br />own e.xample with the Melamed application He agreed with Callahan but thought the <br />ordinance may be too rigid Jabbour did not believe the City would want to redivide the <br />land and did not see the benefit.