Laserfiche WebLink
• <br />MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION <br />MEETING HELD ON NOVEMBER 20, 1995 <br />( #7 - #2059 MCWD - Continued) <br />Smith moved, Lindquist seconded, to approve Application #2059 with the provision that <br />the punch list be addressed by MCWD with Staff and to Staffs satisfaction, and any <br />special changes to the size or scope (specifically, the Medina and Pearce projects) would <br />require future reconsideration by the Planning Commission, Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. <br />( #8) #2078 JENSEN HOMES INC., 405 TONKAWA ROAD - PRELIMINARY <br />SUBDIVISION - CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING - 10 :02 -10:15 P.M. <br />The Applicant was present. <br />Mabusth reported that the 30' easement along the south property line has been located. <br />The easement has been deducted form the total lot area and is now at 3.07 acres. The <br />property is to be developed with rural standards due to the septic. There is a backlot <br />configuration but the west lot is not a back lot. there is access to the public road to the <br />south. Mabusth said the County will not approve any new curb cuts and will require a <br />shared driveway for lot 2, and lot 1 may continue to use existing access. <br />The applicant had no comment. <br />• Peterson asked if the applicant was aware that the third curb cut would not be allowed and <br />received a reply to the affirmative. <br />• <br />Lindquist inquired if there was to be any park or trail acquisition. Mabusth said the Park <br />Commission has not reviewed the application but will at their December 4 meeting. <br />During public comments, Barry Knight, 425 Tonkawa, said he had no problem with the <br />subdivision. He did, however, have a concern with the Staff recommendation for <br />condition 91. He noted that since his property is not a back lot, but under back lot <br />standards, item #1 would relate to his property and should not be included. He was told <br />that item #1, which refers to no more than two residences on one driveway, is a City <br />ordinance and must be part of the conditions. <br />Knight said the deeded access is not exclusive and would benefit the division of other lots. <br />If he were to subdivide in the future, which he said he has the right to do, this would affect <br />him, and he should be part of that code. Knight was informed that if he should subdivide <br />in the future, the code would need to be applied. The parcels in question are not in the <br />MUSA, while Knight's property is within the MUSA. <br />20 <br />