10-18-1999 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON FEBRUARY 17,1998 (#4 - #2326 Orono Development - Continued) Stoddard moved, Lindquist seconded, to approve Application #2326 for commercial site plan with building design and building material variance to allow shake facade, a hardcover variance, front yard parking setback variance of 5' requiring a 15' setback, and subsequent signage approval by Staff for a uniform sign plan, and as further recommended by Staff. Dillon asked what will occur if the study finds that they are unable to get a 15* setback. Stoddard said the Council will discuss it and use the Planning Con^ssion’s recommendation in their consideration. McMillan noted in her opinion the applicant should consider that they have not demonstrated a hardship for this variance. Vote; Ayes 5, Nays 0. SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARINGS: SUBDIVISIONS (#5) #2339 JAMES D. RENDER, 1365 TONKAWA ROAD - PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION - 7:31-8:15 P.M. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. James Render and Mark Gronberg were present. Gaffron reported that the proposal is to subdivide a 1.9 acre parcel into three building The original plan had proposed three lots with an outlot that continues only to the third lot. The revised plan would expand the outlot to a 42' total width. Along with the 8 easement already in place, it would result in 50' for a future road connecting Birch Lane to Tonkawa. The plan includes issues of concern for a cul-de-sac and its impact on hardcover. The plan also does not address the need to serve the neighbors in the future, especially in emergency situations. Birch Lane is presently a 20' corridor that serves about 10 homes. The property between Birch Lane and Tonkawa is presently served by a driveway. Gaffron asked the Commission to consider the need to expand Birch Lane over to Tonkawa. He questioned whether the road needs to be developed now or provide the means for future expansion. The issue also involves whether to require a private road and> cul-de-sac to serve 3 or more lots. The subdivision would provide the land for the road extension. The hardcover impact is a primary concern for the westerly lot as the area within that lot is smaller. The Commission was asked to consider whether to give the applicant hardcover credit for the property given for the roadway. Gaffron recommended that a temporary cul-de-sac be constructed between lots 2 and 3. A vacant lot to the west may eventually need access as well. 6