Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF OCTOBER 21, 1991 <br />• 41683 - CONT. <br />Gaffron noted that Cook is recommending the road be developed at <br />a 24' width at this time. He is requesting a cul -de -sac abutting <br />the northernly building lot. The Engineer and staff have treated <br />this application as a three lot subdivision which would require <br />the roadway and could require the existing drive to access off <br />the new roadway. <br />Johnson felt it should be treated as a two lot subdivision as <br />they are creating two new lots and felt that it would be <br />appropriate to plat the roadway at this time but only require <br />development of the private drive until further development. He <br />felt the current residence should maintain the existing curb cut <br />onto Watertown Road. <br />Mabusth noted that thought must be given to how the road would be <br />paid for in the future. <br />Haislet asked if the drainage swale would have to be developed at <br />this time as there is no immediate future plan. <br />Gaffron indicated that a motion could be conditioned upon receipt <br />of a drainage plan. The Commisssion noted that they would like <br />to see the plan and would table the application. Gaffron <br />• suggested that the grading is relatively minor and if a grading <br />plan is submitted, it could be reviewed by the Engineer prior to <br />Council Preliminary Plat review, avoiding another tabling. <br />Chair Kelley still wanted to review the drainage plans and wanted <br />to ensure that the Hackberry Hill neighbors' concerns have been <br />addressed. <br />Bellows took exception to the indication that this is a two lot <br />subdivision as it is actually a three lot subdivision which <br />resolves the issue of road vs. drive. <br />Rowlette felt that if the development is not foreseen in the near <br />future, and the roadway is required to be built, it may not be <br />maintained properly and may end up looking terrible before the <br />actual future development. She noted that it would be a terrible <br />expense to the current resident to have to move the drive to the <br />new roadway. <br />Bellows stated that the roadway should be constructed to provide <br />for the current development. She felt the current residence <br />should move their drive to the new roadway. <br />Haislet noted that the applicant would not be happy with that <br />scenario and has stated that just a short period of time ago, a <br />development was allowed nearby that allowed all new lots access <br />onto the platted roadway, which is what he wanted to do in the <br />first place. <br />Cel <br />