Laserfiche WebLink
wm. ‘ <br />NiaOTBS OP THB PIAnilG COHHISSIOII ITIK OCTOBER IS, 1989 <br />ETTEIIDMK3 7:00 P.N. <br />The Orono Planning Conaiission net on the above date with the <br />following nembers present: Chairnan Kelley and Planning <br />Connissioners Johnson, Bellows, Cohen, Brown, Hanson and Moos. <br />The following represented the City staff: Assistant Planning and <br />Zoning Administrator Gaffron, Assistant City Engineer Olson, <br />Lieutenant Cheswick, and City Recorder Scheffler. Council <br />Representative Peterson was also present. <br />tl470 DMI ft Itimi PARTSa <br />4300 BAT8IOB ROAD <br />PULUUMART SinOIVISIOH <br />PUBLIC BBARIB6 7:00 P.M. TO 7:40 P.H. <br />The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were <br />duly noted. <br />Mr. and Mrs. Parten were present for this public hearing. <br />Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator Gaffron <br />reviewed the information pertaining to this preliminary <br />subdivision. He said that this property was very unique and <br />linear in configuration with the Luce Line at the north end and <br />Bayside Road at the south end. The applicant is proposing a 3-* <br />lot subdivision with each lot approximately 5 acres in size. <br />Gaffron explained the various issues Involved with this <br />application including the fact that Lot 3 does not abut a public <br />or private road. Another issue is the fact that an alternate <br />drainfield site was not found within the proposed Lot 1. <br />Mr. Parten said that he did not think that Outlot A fit well <br />with the interior property, but would be better suited for the <br />property to the west. <br />Chairman Kcj.ley questioned whether it wouldn't be more <br />practical to havfe only two lots developed, rather than 3? <br />Mr. Parten replied that his interpretation of the reason for <br />the 5-acre zoning is to control density. He said that intention <br />is being met both with his proposal and the development <br />possibilities of the adjacent properties. Mr. Parten also said <br />that the topography and ravine within the property limited the <br />location of building sites. <br />Chairman Kelley questioned whether the applicant had <br />considered proceeding with a PRD? <br />Mr. Parten said that he was somewhat uneasy to proceed in <br />that manner. He questioned how the commons area would be <br />maintained. <br />Kelley cited the French Creek development as an example of a <br />PRD and informed Mr. Parten that agreements are made as to the <br />maintenance of the commons area. Kelley said that he had visited