02-21-2001 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Wednesday, January 17,2001 (M26S1 Stephen Longman Builders, Continued) 25 percent hardcom limit be complied with on newr construction. Kluth stated in his opinion he does not sec a hardship inherent to the land. Kluth moved, Berg seconded, to recommend denial of Application <12651, Stephen Longman Builders, Inc., on behalf of Robin and Jeremy Bupp, 2696 Caroline Avenue, and not grant a hardcover variance. \’OTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0 SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARINGS 7;30 p.m. (K7) #7^50 CHARLES VAN EECKHOUT, 120 BROWN ROAD SOUTH, PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION, PUBLIC HEARING, 8:05 p.m. - 8 29 p.m. Charles Van Eeckhout. Applicant, wns present. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were rated Weinberger stated the Planning Commission has looked at various revisions of this basic concept plan a number of times, w ith the latest revision showing a four lot development Weinberger stated this area is located within the two acre zoning district This is a 20 acre site, with 14.1 acres being drv buildable. The City Council voted to return this item to the Planning Commission to review the new four lot concept. This matter was also reviewed by the Long Lake Planning Commission due to some road access issues that need to be resolved Weinberger stated one of the nuin issues with this development relate to access to the various lots North of the site is the Citv of Long Lake and Apple Glen Road, which is a private road The Long Lake Planning Commission met on January 9* and tabled this request to consider access due to some issues relating to notification of the neighbors and discussions with Long Lake’s City Attorney The application bcfoie the Long Lake Planning Commission depicted seven lots ratlier than the four lots now before the Planning Comission tonight. Weinberger stated what the Applicant is now proposing is a four lot development with scccss back to Brown Road, which was onginally considered with a cul-dc-sac and a five lot plan. The revised concept plan does meet a couple of the concerns that were raised by the Planning Commission earlv on bv reducing the number of lots to four The Applicant is now proposing two lots at the north end along with three lots to the south, which would also include the e.\isting house which is owned by the Applicant. Weinberger staled this plan is again at the concept plan stage, with the Applicant looking for some direction and some type of recommendation to move this matter before the City Council for consideration of preliminary plat Weinberger stated the two main issues that have held this application up w ere a technical evaluation review of the actual wetland boundaries on the property. PAGE 13 1