Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br />ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br />Monday, August 20, 2018 <br />6:30 o’clock p.m. <br />_____________________________________________________________________________________ <br /> <br />Page 2 of 5 <br /> <br /> <br />Staff does not support the proposal as drafted due to the following: <br /> <br />a. The proposal creates a nonconforming parcel by virtue of creating an easement back lot. <br /> <br />b. Access to the lot is in question and information supporting access rights to the development have <br /> not been provided. <br />c. The lot proposed requires a lake yard setback to improve the property. Staff recommends a lot be <br /> created at or nearer the point that does not require a lake setback to develop. <br /> <br />Thiesse asked if they would require 30 feet to create an outlot. <br /> <br />Barnhart indicated they would need a 30-foot wide outlot to provide access to the front lot/back lot. The <br />City would also look for some sort of turnaround within the development. This plat is similar to a recent <br />application approved on Ivy Place. In that situation, the developer agreed to provide onsite turnarounds <br />and sprinkler the buildings to help offset the challenges created by the long road ending in a dead end. <br /> <br />Thiesse asked what this would do to the development of the next lots down. <br /> <br />Barnhart stated the sketch plan does not address that and that they are simply proposing to plat these four <br />lots into one buildable lot. <br /> <br />Thiesse asked if it would preclude them from developing those lots. <br /> <br />Barnhart stated it would depend on whether the Planning Commission was okay with waiving the access <br />for the proposed lot. The front lot/back lot situation basically allows them to create this lot and then one <br />additional lot that would be accessed via the outlot. <br /> <br />Thiesse asked if a cul-de-sac would need to be constructed if the Planning Commission is not agreeable <br />with the front lot/back lot. <br /> <br />Barnhart stated that is one of the options. <br /> <br />Sven Gustafson, Stonewood, stated this is a unique property since it is located on a peninsula and is <br />narrow. To develop the property in any way would require some variances and that they are here looking <br />for some feedback and direction on how best to proceed with developing it. <br /> <br />In regards to the road, currently Baldur Park Road is 12 feet wide and it would not make much sense to <br />have a 24-foot wide road at the end of the 12-foot road. Gustafson stated they are looking at an outlot that <br />would serve some lots beyond this property. <br /> <br />Gustafson stated they do not know about the wetlands at this point. Once the wetland is delineated, that <br />will likely drive some changes. Gustafson stated obviously the 75-foot lakeshore setbacks are impossible <br />to meet no matter what they do with the lot lines. <br /> <br />Chair Thiesse asked for public comment at 6:49 p.m. <br />