Laserfiche WebLink
NiNUTta OP THB ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF NOVEMBER 16. 1991 <br />#1691 & 1702 - CONT. <br />Chair Kelley asked where the new proposed dividing line between <br />the two cities was to be. <br />Mabusth indicated that the entire parcel would become part of <br />Long Lake and the new boundary would be along the north and west <br />boundaries of the Orono Oaks plat. <br />Chair Kelley asked how that affects maintenance when a road <br />half in Orono and half in Long Lake. <br />Mabusth advised that the road issue would have to be addressed in <br />the covenant and the City would also request tlie restoration of <br />Orono Orchard Drive when utilities are e.xtended from the south. <br />Bellows stated her opposition to the creation of Lot 1. Block I <br />as it appears that a totally separate lot is being created. <br />Mabusth explained that the original plan provided for two lots in <br />that area. She felt this plan had greatly improved and was <br />pleased to see the change. She indicated Lot 1 is a part of the <br />property and therefore must be treated as such. To relocate <br />another residential unit to the east side of the property wou:. <br />have a major impact given the extremes of elevation. <br />Bellows felt that the proposed municipal boundary line may be <br />considered as gerry-mandering. <br />Mabusth noted that municipal boundary lines are often very gerry­ <br />mandered. <br />Bellows proposed that they are trying to dee’ with the PRD but it <br />is a very sensitive issue and felt that Lot 1 stands out as a <br />monophony. <br />Kellenburger felt that a 20’ front setback for Lot 1 was not <br />large enough. He pointed out that Orono Orchard Road is used <br />greatly by pedestrians and bikers on their way to the Luce Line <br />Trail and asked about a possible pathway. <br />Mabusth stated that the City does have ?. comprehensive trail <br />system plan but a pathway has not been considered for this area. <br />Squire advised Lot 1 would have a 25 foot street '•etback and that <br />th** actual travelled road is 45 feet from the street lot line. <br />Chair Kelley asked about lot coverage restrictions. <br />Mabusth noted that the code allo> s for 15% coverage for areas of <br />less than I acre and that could be incorporated within tlie <br />covenant. <br />Squire reported that a 15% lot coverage was indicated on the <br />plat. <br />-- - -