Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br /> Monday,August 17,2015 <br /> 6:30 dclock p.m. <br /> Gaffron indicated this is a new developer and that the prior review was of a sketch plan that never went <br /> forward. Gaffron stated there are two existing corridors and an existing driveway that services the house. <br /> There is a wetland that would need to be crossed in order to make use of one of the corridors to the north. <br /> The applicants are not proposing to do that. <br /> Thiesse asked about access to the neighboring lot. <br /> Gaffron stated the neighbor to the north has no specific access to it that is viable and that they could <br /> potentially get access from the east through the Jacob Mills property but the homeowners association had <br /> an issue with that. The property owners have spoken to the County a number of times about gaining <br /> access off the county road. The previous review for this property had a 30-foot corridor going up and a <br /> proposed driveway that would also serve that property as well. That is no longer a part of the mix and <br /> there is no proposed solution for that with this application. <br /> Lemke asked if the Planning Commission can incorporate the fire chiefls recommendations. <br /> Gaffron stated the Planning Commission should incorporate those into their motion. The Fire Chief <br /> stated if there is not a fire suppression system, it would need to be a 20-foot corridor. <br /> Patrick Mulhern,Applicant, stated the property owners have been attempting to sell this land for ten years <br /> and that at one point Charles Cudd was trying to develop it into three lots. Mulhern stated they looked at <br /> that plan and saw the challenges with that proposal given the type of road that would be required, which is <br /> the reason for their proposaL Mulhern indicated there would be one building site on the north side and <br /> one on the southeast side overlooking the wetland. Both homes would be set up on the hill. <br /> Mark Gronberg asked if Outlot B would account for some frontage on the northerly lot. <br /> Gaffron stated technically it is not a road. <br /> Gronberg stated to his knowledge it is a private road for the two lots. Gaffron asked if they are proposing <br /> to meet road standards with that road. <br /> Gronberg stated to his understanding for two lots it can be 20 feet wide with a 50-foot frontage. Gronberg <br /> stated to his recollection the City has done that in the past when there is at least a 50-foot right-of-way. <br /> Gaffron stated the City probably has but that he would rather grant the variance to the lot width for that <br /> lot. <br /> Gronberg noted they do have frontage along the public right-of-way over on the east side as well. <br /> Gaffron stated it is not open to public use. The right-of-way to the east would probably not count towards <br /> the frontage since it is not open to public travel even though it is a public right-of-way. Gaffron stated he <br /> is not opposed to granting a lot width variance since there is approximately three acres of contiguous land <br /> up in this area. Gaffron stated in his view it is a very good solution for this property. <br /> Gronberg stated the applicants also wanted to pull the driveway away from the neighboring property. <br /> Gaffron stated one of the original proposals was to locate the driveway right next to the neighboring <br /> property. <br /> Page 15 of 43 <br />