10-18-1993 Planning PacketC - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OP THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD JULY 18, 1988 ATTENDANCE 7:00 P.M. ^ • The Orono Planning Commission met cn the above date with the following members present: Chairman Kelley, Johnson, Moos, Cohen, and Hanson. Brown arrived at 7:25 p.m. The following represented the City staff: Building & Zoning Administrator Mabusth, Assistant Planning % Zoning Administrator Gaffron, and City Recorder Scheffler. CounciImeraber Peterson was also present. #1301 DAVID L. WHITE & FREDRICK C. WHITE 180 NORTH SHORE DRIVE WEST CLASS 3 PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION Mr. Fredrick White was present for this matter. Gaffron explained the proposed subdivision, noting the location of the existing house and garage. The Applicants propose to leave ^ 2+ acre parcel with the existing house and also create a second buildable ipt. Their site evaluator found an alternate site for the existing house its proposed 3-acre parro,! hut testing resulted in a recommendation by the site evaluator to add auout 1.3 acres to Lot 2 to accomodate drainfield sites, leaving Lot 2 with about 4.8 acres total. Applicant has agreed to this revision. They intend to ler.ve Outlot A for future development. This would result in a subdivision of three lots that would access from County Road 84. The City Engineer, Glen cook, recommends that interior access be developed for this property. Staff put together a diagram showing anticipated development in the area. Mr. Armstrong, property owner to the east, expressed concern about access. The Armstrong property could easily be served by a road along it north boundary. The Olson property directly North of Armstrongs could be served by a cul de sac. Applicant stated that he doubted the ability to put a sewer system on north part of the outlot due to topography, and was not sure whether there would be enough land to put in a cul de sac and still have 2 acre lots in Outlot A. Hanson suggested an alternate cul de sac location to avoid access directly onto County Road 19. Gaffron suggested that a stipulation of subdivision approval be that once an interior access road is developed, all lots would have to access from it. Hanson noted that a topographic map had not been submitted and Cohen agreed that since the Outlot area is of concern as it relates comprehensive development plan for the area, that topography would be necessary. Hanson commented that, more than any parcel he ha r^c V seen, he feels that the total acreage here and development possibilities adjacent really do require a more comprehensive approach ^o the de^lopment. Mrs. Armstrong,, who is the owner of property to the east and south of Applicants stated that she is interested in the ability o 9 in with a road from 19 since they may wish to sell that property. She questioned whether plans to do so would need to be written into the present proposal. Mr. Kelley informed her that the dedication of 20 f®et ^ future roadway would probably be one of the conditions of tho subdivision on this property. Gaffron inquired whether road construction costs would be shared given that 2 of Applicant’s lots may ultimately require usage of that road? Kelley commented affirmatively and went on to say that ne