Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION <br />MEETING HELD ON APRIL 17, 1995 <br />• <br />(#9 - #2014 James Nystrom - Continued) <br />Peterson moved, Nolan seconded, to table Application #2014 to allow time for new plans <br />to be drawn. Ayes 7, Nays 0. <br />SKETCH PLAN REVIEWS <br />( #10) #2006 JAMES BRUCE, 565 LEAF STREET - SKETCH <br />PLANISUBDIVISION <br />James Bruce was present. <br />This sketch plan is for a 3 -lot subdivision of lot 6 of the Stielow Addition. This property <br />consists of 5.9 acres, and the applicant would need to acquire 0.1 acres from an adjacent <br />neighbor to meet the area requirement. Mabusth noted that the property is within the <br />MUSA, and sewer is available from Oxford Road. Two stubs are now in, and one <br />additional connection would be required to serve lot 3. A utility easement would be <br />required and would encroach lots 1 and 2 and should be located near the shared lot lines. <br />Credit for the wetlands or drainageway areas are available as property is served with <br />sewer. A realignment of the drainage easement is proposed because of the impact on the <br />• building envelope. It was noted that an existing residence is located on lot 2. <br />Nolan asked the applicant what his intentions were for the realignment of the drainageway. <br />The applicant said he felt the logical building envelope is in the northern wooded area, and <br />the drainage easement could be moved to the south. Smith asked for clarification on <br />where the building envelope would be located. The applicant said up against the setback. <br />Concern over removal of any wooded area was voiced, noting a good building envelope to <br />the south. Lindquist asked if there was a problem with moving the ditch, and Mabusth <br />noted it may not be necesary and may just be a matter of redefining easement. A separate <br />CUP for the subdivision would be required if drainageway is relocated. <br />• <br />Rowlette asked if there was any lake view on this property. The applicant said that there <br />was a minimal view in the wintertime. <br />Mabusth said if the guesthouse were to remain as a separate residence, the applicant <br />needed to be notified that the area standard for a guesthouse would not be met. <br />The access to the property was discussed as two drives coming from Oxford Road. <br />Possible access options to lot 3 were discussed noting the need to not cut lot 3 in half. <br />Nolan was concerned with the narrow configuration of lot 3 and taking the portion of the <br />driveway out of the west side of lot 2. <br />9 <br />