02-13-1989 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MIHUTBS OF THE PLANNIHG COMMISSION MEETING JANUARY 17, 1989 ATTENDANCE 7:00 P.M. The Orono Planning Commission met on the above date with the following members present: Chairman Kelley; Planning Commission members Johnson, Bellows, Brown, Cohen, Han.^on and Moos. The following represented the City staff: Building and Zoring Administrator Mabusth, Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator Gaffron and City Recorder Scheffler. Council Representative Edward Callahan, Jr. attended and CounciImember Goetten was also present. #1366 LOREN BUTTERFIELD 3925 WATERTOflN ROAD CLASS II PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION PUBLIC HEARING 7:00 P.M. •> 7:35 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were duly noted. Mr. Butterfield was present for this matter. Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator Gaffron explained that Mr. Butterfield was requesting to subdivide a 5- acre dry buildable lot from a 17 acre parcel. The applicant is proposing to use Out lot C, which is 28* in width, as an access to the new lot. The accessory structures on Lot 1 will no longer meet a 10* side setbac , but will be only 1* from the new side lot line. Outlot A and Lot 2 will be subject tc a special lot combination, yielding a 3-acre parcel that cannot be separated. The DNR nas ’indicated that they have no specific setback requirements from the Luce Line Trail. Chairman Kelley asked whether the lot to the south of the Luce Line could ever be accessed from the south. Mr. Butterfield stated that he had a right-of-way agreement with the PNR to allow crossing the trail. Planning Commissioner Bellows asked for the combined total of Out lots B and A? Gaffron replied that it would total approximately 3.5 dry acres. Bellows expressed her concern about the Luce Line Trail divir*’ tiie property. Mr. Butterfield interjected that the Luv ne was in a deep cut at that location. Planning Comr oner Hanson questioned the ramifications of dividing tl '>perty in such a way. Gaffron explained that the code sectio ^owed 5 acres to be split into 2 parcels that are not contig\. . as long as the building site has a minimum of 2 acres. Anot-iier code section addresses the issue of a lot being split by a road or road easement. This would bring forth the question of whether the Luce Line would be considered a public road or a public road easement. Bellows, Hanson and Kelley expressed their concerns and reservations about the involvement of the Luce Line in the subdivision. Bellows asked whether ’"' tiding restrictions could be placed upon the lots to the south . the Luce Line. Her main