Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br /> Monday, November 17, 2003 <br /> 6:00 o'clock p.m. <br /> (#11) #03-2961 NINA WILDMAN, 745 SPRING HILL ROAD, PRELIMINARY <br /> PLAT, Continued <br /> Knowing what fire trucks need for access, Fritzler stated that 20' is adequate, but <br /> necessary, in order to access these properties. Although he did not feel either neighbor <br /> would offer additional easements through the cartway. <br /> Gaffron pointed out that the Van Eeckhout proposal did not proceed because the developer <br /> was unable to obtain a 50' corridor for a roadway 24' wide to support the 4-6 lot <br /> subdivision they proposed. <br /> Bremer commented that this supports the need for a wider corridor all the more. <br /> Rahn pointed out that the applicants subdivision had the potential to result in 5 homes, and <br /> he believed the City must plan a roadway accordingly. He urged the Commission to <br /> assume the worst case scenario. <br /> Gronberg stated that they were not coming in with a proposal for 7 homes at this time. He <br /> believed the City would have ample opportunity to improve the proposed roadway solution <br /> if more homes were proposed later. <br /> Carlson stated that Ms. Wildman felt as her neighbors and wished to preserve the character <br /> of the neighborhood. He indicated that they had provided the City with a site sensitive <br /> design. <br /> Gaffron stated that if the Commission deems that adding one home is appropriate, and <br /> addressing the issue of more development later as these are proposed, he suggested the <br /> Commission consider the addition of covenants to the recommendation. <br /> Acting Chair Mabusth felt better address plates distinguishing the residential properties <br /> was necessary. She asked if the applicant would be comfortable with the Commission <br /> placing restrictions on the development of the properties. <br /> Zugschwert asked if the Commission could legally deal with the possibility of future <br /> subdivisions now by setting limitations on development. <br /> Rice indicated that covenants could be placed over the properties if the current owners <br /> were willing to allow it. He suggested getting all of the stake holders involved at that time <br /> to afford them a certain level of comfort in creating the deed restrictions or covenants for <br /> preservation. <br /> Acting Chair Mabusth asked if these covenants might impact the value of the lots. <br /> PAGE 27 of 41 <br />