Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION <br /> Tuesday,January 19,2021 <br /> 6:00 o'clock p.m. <br /> would overcrowd the site; as mentioned before the six lots conform to the lot area requirements,and even <br /> though some of them are right at 2 acres they all meet the minimum requirement. Regarding the ALS <br /> issue,many comments were based on the location of a potential house on lot 3 of Tanager Estates. When <br /> Tanager Estates was developed,they identified 3 sites that could be used to build a home so they could <br /> prove that a home could be built. This is not an approval of a footprint or final approval of a location;this <br /> is just a general location. Earlier drafts last fall based on the proposed house pad showed an ALS line, <br /> and Barnhart said that line should not be there now because there is not a lot here and they are not <br /> creating an artificial ALS. The ALS for lot 5 is only based on the distance of 1100 Millston which is the <br /> lakeshore lot to the east. He noted this ALS should really be ignored or labeled"existing ALS." The <br /> neighboring property made a comment about the lot widths—lake lots are measured at the lake and at 75 <br /> feet back. If they are not lake lots,they are measured at the building setback line for the given zoning <br /> district so lots 1,2,and 3 currently,the argument is made are not lake lots because Outlot C,B,and A <br /> would be combined at the time. He said the lots were designed to accommodate that future consolidation. <br /> Lot 1 and 2 currently meet the requirements based on the building setback line and lot 3 is a bit short <br /> based on the building setback line. The decision was made early in the review process to anticipate this <br /> as a lake lot because that is what they intend it to be,however County roads prohibit the combination at <br /> this stage. The neighbor made a comment about the cul-de-sac length and Barnhart showed onscreen the <br /> distance of exactly 1,000 feet. The County recommends a turn lane for westbound traffic and Staff <br /> recommends engineering would be completed as a condition of plat approval. It is not uncommon for <br /> engineering issues or comments to be deferred until final plat approval because this is an opportunity for <br /> the community,Planning Commission, and City Council to provide comment on the preliminary plat and <br /> make any changes necessary from an engineering standpoint.The traffic was raised as a concern with five <br /> new lots onto this property and the County has not suggested that five additional lots will generate traffic <br /> issues. The neighbor has suggested some impact to the neighboring trees along the new road and Staff <br /> has asked for a landscaping plan to see how those trees would be replaced and some comments will come <br /> out as part of the engineering review of the street plan. He noted they have made modifications to try to <br /> shift that road over as far as possible to minimize impact to the wetland in that location. Staff <br /> recommends approval,this is a public hearing,and Barnhart invited comments. <br /> Bollis asked if Barnhart can touch on the combination of those outlets with 1,2, and 3. <br /> Barnhart explained the County does not allow these lots to be platted together,meaning they have to be <br /> platted separately and then combined in a second action. He said this has always intended to be a lake lot <br /> for lots 1,2,and 3 so they have created a corresponding outlot that would be combined at the time of plat. <br /> There are no size requirements for outlots so there is no review necessary in terms of width or area for <br /> those. The intent is to combine those. <br /> Chair Ressler said the County has weighed in as far as instructing a turn lane and the developer is okay <br /> with the feedback. <br /> Barnhart said that would be a good question for the developer and the comment came out right before the <br /> Planning Commission's review in August for the County improvements;they recommend the turn lane <br /> and require a permit. He does not know how strong they are on a turn lane. They would also support any <br /> condition on the City to require any additional turn lanes or additional improvements. <br /> Chair Ressler noted Staff's feedback and support of this application as submitted is contingent on the <br /> Applicant's supporting the feedback requested for the turn lane. <br /> Page 2 of 28 <br />