Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br /> Monday, October 16,2000 <br /> • #2626 William and Lynne Peterson, Continued) <br /> conditions: <br /> 1. Applicant shall receive approval from the MCWD for the land alteration within a wetland. <br /> 2. Final Grading Plan for the driveway shall be approved by the City of Orono. <br /> 3. Septic Sites shall be enclosed with a four foot orange snow fence prior to land alteration <br /> and grading on the lots as required by the On-Site Systems Manager. <br /> 4. Applicant shall enter into a Hold Harmless Agreement with the City of Orono for the private <br /> driveway within the public right-of-way and agree that others requesting use of the public <br /> land can share a driveway if required. <br /> City Staff would recommend denial of the request for vacation until such time the property to <br /> the north develops and legal access would be secured to all properties. <br /> Peterson stated the proposed driveway does meet the grading requirements of the City,with a <br /> very small wetland existing on the property. Peterson stated he is requesting that the road be <br /> vacated,which would then not require a variance to lot area. If the road is not vacated, a <br /> variance would then be needed. <br /> Peterson stated the roads in this area were platted in 1914 and have not been used in the last <br /> 80, 90 years. Peterson stated he is unsure what the initial intention for the roads was. <br /> Peterson stated he does not have a problem granting an easement to allow access to Lot 7 <br /> should that ever be required,which in his view is a win/win situation and provides a cheaper, <br /> straighter access to that lot. <br /> Robert Roden,460 Orchard Park,stated he is in agreement with Peterson. <br /> Stoddard inquired whether Roden is the owner of Lots 5, 6, 7,and 9. <br /> Roden stated he is. <br /> Peterson commented that Lot 6 is basically a wetland. <br /> Lindquist stated he would not have a problem approving a lot width variance for this parcel <br /> subject to the conditions listed in the Planner's report. Lindquist indicated he would not be in <br /> support of the vacation at this time since he is unsure what will occur in this area in the future. <br /> Hawn noted the lots in this area are substandard,with the potential for an easement to cause <br /> problems in the future should ownership of the lots change. <br /> Peterson stated he would be willing to make the easement permanent. <br /> • <br /> PAGE 15 <br />