09-19-1988 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

• • f *m ; • ' ♦ ' .. f T a ^WN*Nte-..v - »iii|gia»«awp^-«^^->w-<*36j^ -"^i ,iek=i*^,»^'-^ •*-«?-*-.;K1.S.-’jsjs MIHUTBS OF THE PLANlilllG COMMISSION MEETING HELD JOLT 18r 1388 ATTENDANCE 7:00 P.M. ^ , . The Orono Planning Commission met on 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 A Zoning Administrator Gaffron, and City Recorder Scheffler. CounciImember Peterson was also present. fl301 DAVID L. NHITB & FREDRICK C. NHITE 180 NORTH SHORE DRIVE NEST 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 propo e to leave a 2-J- acre parcel with the existing house and also create a second buildable lot. Their site evaluator found an alternate site for the existing house with its proposed 3-acre parcel, but testing resulted in a recommendation by the site evaluator to add about 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 leave Outlet 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 pux. 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 to a comprehensive development plan for the area, that topography would be necessary. Hanson commented that, more than any parcel he has lucentiy seen, he feels that the total acreage here and development possibilities adjacent really do require a more comprehensive approach to development. Mrs. Armstrong,, who is the owner of property to the east and south of Applicants stated that she is interested in the ability of coming 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 future roadway would probably be ona of the conditions of the subdivision on this property. Gaffron inquired whether road construction costs woul be shared given that 2 of Applicant's lots may ultimately require usage o that road? Kelley commented affirmatively and went on to say that ne -^4\ m 4 • mm ■4 -i ■m #1301 DA concurre suie tha plan of Roads, Commissi to devel Kel question- county Ri they hav to limit Kelley, consider topograp the roadi #1207 GEl 2815 CAS( CONDITIO! THIRD RE^ Gem Zoni the repl 1987. Tl a 7* X 7* underneat in the t. hardcove reviewed Comm it inclui Kelley qi that this persons w Applicant area. Ha this. Ma this. In asked A] next Sp that ap] and the John: the -75 structure seconded