10-18-1993 Planning PacketC - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLiUNNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD OCTOBER 18, 1993 ROLL The Orono Planning Commission met on ilie atnne date with the following members present: Chair Charles SclmK*der. Charles Nolan Jr.. Sandra Smith, Stephen Peterson. Janiee Berg, and Dale Lindquist. The following represented the City staff: Assistant Building & Zoning Administrator Vliehael Gaffron and Recorder Lin Vee. Chair Schroeder called the meeting to order at 7:00 p. .i. (#1) #1875 FREDERICK AND DAVID WHITE 180 NORTH SHORE DRIVE WEST - PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION (RENEWAL) - PUBLIC HEARING 7:03 P.M. - 7:17 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Ccnificate of Mailing were noted. I'rederick and David White were present. Gaffron explained that this was a request for a on; lot subtlivision. A parcel is proposed to be split 'Tf from the lot with an existing house which wouhl be 2+ acres leaving a 17 acre parcel for luiure development. This application was before tiK City Council about four years ago and received preliminary approval. That approval required that an additional 17' of right-of-way be granted for a total of 50’ from the centerline of County Road 19. Establishing an outlot eliminates the present concerns for adding roads and park fees. It disallows the use of the remaining parcel as a building site until it is further subdivided. This application is for a renewal of the same conditions. David White noted that the wetland does not show up on DNR maps. 1 here is a drainage ditch put in by the County which drains the surrounding properties. Frederick White stated that the approved conditions are not what they asked for but what the City forced on them. They were to Council three limes and they feel that it would cost more do what the City asks than the land is worth. Scim>edei stated ilia what the Planning Commission is being asked to do is review a renewal of the same application. He though the applicants may not be interested in renewing it on the same basis. White explained th:,- «'figina!ly they proposed three lots but the City would not approve that unless interior roau*- v.> re installed. When a building permit for the existing house was taken out. three lots were esiablished in the area and now- they can't even get one lot from that same area. Gaffron explained that if the applicants wish to make any changes from the original approval resolution, a different application with a different fee structure wnuld have to be filed. That application would include park fees and interior roads. White stated the County would approve three accesses for three lots from the County road but the City denied that request. I