Laserfiche WebLink
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br /> MINUTES FOR JANUARY 19, 2000 <br /> • <br /> (#2550 Charles Van Eeckhout, Continued) <br /> Weinberger inquired whether the land area calculations were determined by a surveyor. <br /> Berg indicated they were, with the revised calculations indicating 13.7 acres dry buildable. <br /> Weinberger stated the new numbers under a standard plat or PRD must meet all the minimum <br /> lot size requirements, with 13.7 acres dry buildable meaning the developer may have six lots <br /> in this subdivision. <br /> Berg stated this subdivision surpasses the City's ordinances for a standard sewered lot. Berg <br /> pointed out they are only three-tenths of an acre less than 14 acres dry buildable. Berg <br /> stated one area within this subdivision was artificially lowered a number of years ago, which <br /> may not become flooded. <br /> Stoddard stated it would still be defined as a wetland. <br /> Van Eeckhout commented part of the wetland is located above the 100 year floodplain and <br /> would in all likelihood never be wet. Van Eeckhout stated in his opinion this area would not <br /> have needed to be included in the wetland calculations. <br /> Stoddard stated the Planning Commission reviews these applications based upon the <br /> information that is submitted by the Applicant. Stoddard commented at the previous meeting <br /> the Planning Commission had focused on the size of the lots and had requested the developer <br /> look at increasing the lot size as much as possible. <br /> • Kluth commented he likes the bigger lots in the northeast corner. <br /> Van Eeckhout stated in his view this is a good plan, and requested the Planning Commission <br /> act on his application. <br /> Hawn requested the Applicant address the issue of access. <br /> Van Eeckhout stated he has paid Mr. Dunn three times for the same easement. Van Eeckhout <br /> stated he has had an attorney review this easement as well as his title insurance company, <br /> who have both assured him that he is legally entitled to construct a road over this easement to <br /> serve his subdivision. <br /> Tom Barrett, City Attorney, noted he has attempted to review all the documents relating to this <br /> item. Barrett stated there appears to be a utility easement over the southern portion of the <br /> property as well as the driveway easement. Barrett stated in his view the problem with the <br /> document agreeing to the driveway easement is it does not further address any other issues, <br /> such as whether this driveway easement should support access to other residences. <br /> Barrett recommended approval of this application be made contingent upon final resolution of <br /> this issue. <br /> Barrett stated another issue dealing with the access is whether the City would allow a private <br /> road as an access. Barrett commented he has questions whether the driveway easement would <br /> allow the developer to build a public road. <br /> • David Berkowski, South Brown Road, inquired what the additional ten foot area represented. <br /> Page 11 <br />