Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF NOVEMBER 18, 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 just north of Orono Oaks <br />Drive. <br />Chair Kelley asked how that affects maintenance when a road is <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 restoration of Orono <br />Oaks Drive. <br />Bellows stated her opposition to the creation of Lot 1, Block 1 <br />as it appears as a totally separate lot that 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. <br />Bellows felt that it may be considered as gerry— mandering. <br />Mabusth noted that municipal boundary lines are very gerry- <br />mandered. <br />• Bellows proposed that they are trying to deal with the PRD but it <br />is a very sensitive issue and felt that Lot 1 stands out as a <br />monophony. <br />is <br />Mabusth asked if she felt it made more sense to move the building <br />pad to the other side of the lagoon. Mabusth stated that she <br />would rather leave it as is because it would cause further <br />changes in elevations on the eastern side. <br />Kellenburger felt that a 20' front setback for Lot 1 was not <br />larger 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 a comprehensive trail <br />system plan but a pathway has not been considered for this area. <br />Chair Kelley asked about lot coverage restrictions. <br />Mabusth noted that the code allows for 15% coverage for areas of <br />less than 1 acre and that could be incorporated within the <br />covenant. <br />Roos reported that a 15% lot coverage was indicated on the plat. <br />3 <br />