11-15-1993 Planning PacketC - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD OCTOBER 18, 1993 ROLL The Orono Planning Commission met on the above date with the following members present: Chair Charles Schroeder, Charles Nolan Jr., Sandra Smith. Stephen Peterson. Janice Berg, and Dale Lindquist. The following represented the City staff: Assistant Building & Zoning Administrator Michael G-'^ffron and Recorder Lin Vee. Chair Schroeder called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. (#1) #1875 FREDERICK AND DAVID WHITE 180 NORTH SHORE DRIVE WEST - PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION (RENEWAL) - PUBLIC HEARING 7:03 P..M. - 7:17 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. Frederick and David White were present. Gaffron e.xplained that this was a request for a one lot subdivision. A parcel is proposed to be split off from the lot with an existing house which would be 2+ acres leaving a 17 acre parcel for future development. This application was before the City Council about four years ago md received preliminary approval. That approval required that an additional 17’ of right-of-way be granted for a total of 50’ from the centerline of County Road 19. Establishing an outlot eliminates the present concerns for adding roads and park fees. It disallows the use ol the remaining parcel as a building site until it is further subdivided. This application is for a renewal of the same conditions. David White noted that the wetland does not show up on DNR maps. There is a drainage ditch put in by the County which drains the surrounding properties. Frederick White stated that the approved conditions are not what they asked for but what the City forced on them. They were to Council three times and they teel that it would cost more do what the Citv asks than the land is worth. Scliroeder stated that what the Planning Co.ninission is being asked to do is review a renewal of the same application. He though the applicants may not be interested in renewing it on the same basis. White explained that originally they proposed three iots bui the C-.ty would not approve that unless interior roads were installed. When a building permit tor the existing house was taken out, three lots were established in the area and now they can t even get one lot trom that same area. Gaffron e.xplained that if the applicants wish to make any changes from the original approval resolution, a different application with a ditferent fee structure would have to be tiled. That application would include park fees and interior roads. White stated the County would approve three accesses for three lots from the County road but the Citv denied that request. 1