08-21-2000 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 19,2000 (#2589 WOODHILL COUNTRY CLUB, CONTINUED) with the neighbors and try to resolve these issues and to discuss whether additional conditions are necessary. Jackson stated the Club would like tc do these improvements prior to wintertime. Smith noted this application will go before the City Council as a failed motion. Hawn recommended the parties meet prior to this application appearing before the City Council to tr>‘ to resolve these issues. Smith stated in her view by allowing this application to go before the City Council as a failed motion, the Planning Commission has not completed their job. Lindquist stated in his opinion the unresolved issues that have e.xisted for over a year need to be resolved prior to this application proceeding on to the City Council. (#4) #2592 MIKE HILBELINK AND JOHN VOGT, 350 STUBBS BAY ROAD NORTH - PROPOSED TWO LOT SUBDIVISION, 8:25 p.m. - 8:49 p.m. Mike Hilbelink and John Vogt, Applicants, were present, The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication v\cre noted. Weinberger stated the Applicants arc proposing a lot split of an existing parcel located at 3.50 Stubbs Bay Road North. This property is located within the RR>1B zoning district, with a two acre minimum this site is located on the cast side of Stubbs Bay Road, with the land to the west of Stubbs Bay road being located in the five acre minimum lot size district. The Applicants arc proposing a front/back lot subdivision which requires greater zoning standards for properties that do not have immediate road access. Lot 2 would not have direct access to a road. This property docs have adequate land area to make this subdivision work, with both lots having acreage that exceeds the required minimum standards. Weinberger stated one lot would consist of approximately four acres, with the other lot consisting of approximately 10 acres. Weinberger stated three acres arc required for a lot that docs not have direct access to a road. Weinberger stated Lot I will be approximately 2.73 acres dry buildabtc, with the wetlands not impacting upon the proposed building pads for either lot. The main issue with this application is the access to the two properties, with front/back subdivisions requiring that an outlot be created as an access outlot for a private driveway. Weinberger stated m this case the»c is an existing driveway, with the outlot being configured in such a way as to allow access to the back lot. This arrangement would require a shared driveway acecss. Weinberger sta,cd it would be appropriate to increase the width of the outlot an additional 10 feet to the south to accommodate drainage, snow removal and screening from the building site on Lot 1. The submitted site plan indicates the outlot's southern boundary follows the existing driveway PAGE 15