My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Re: request for loop driveway
Orono
>
Property Files
>
Street Address
>
S
>
Sugarwood Drive
>
2003 Sugarwood Drive - 34-118-23-21-0010
>
Correspondence
>
Re: request for loop driveway
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/22/2023 4:54:37 PM
Creation date
3/22/2019 1:34:37 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
x Address Old
House Number
2003
Street Name
Sugarwood
Street Type
Drive
Address
2003 Sugarwood Drive
Document Type
Correspondence
PIN
3411823210010
Supplemental fields
ProcessedPID
Updated
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
30
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
1 <br /> Ms. Jeanne A. Mabusth <br /> April 16, 1990 <br /> Page 2 <br /> We are hereby requesting that the Orono City Council <br /> formally approve the use of looped driveways in Sugar Woods, <br /> because straight driveways are already proving to be impractical <br /> and unsafe. Looped driveways are common in Orono and should be <br /> allowed in Sugar Woods. If the City Council agrees, it could pass <br /> a resolution interpreting Paragraph F of Resolution 2652 as <br /> allowing looped driveways or it could pass a resolution amending <br /> said Paragraph F. In either case, no driveway should be more <br /> than 20 feet wide as it passes through the 50-foot wide front <br /> setback area. <br /> The question of looped driveways arose recently with the <br /> application for a building permit for a house to be built by <br /> Steiner & Koppelman on Lot 2 , Block 2, Sugar Woods. I understand <br /> that several driveway layouts were proposed, namely the <br /> following: <br /> 1. The builder proposed to build a looped driveway with <br /> the enclosed layout ("Choice #1") . It was rejected, because <br /> it involved two driveways that cut through the 50-foot area <br /> front setback area. <br /> 2. The builder proposed an alternate layout consisting of <br /> a straight driveway with a turn-around circle (enclosed as <br /> "Choice #2") • It was rejected, because portions of the <br /> driveway were more than 20 feet wide within the 50-foot <br /> front setback. <br /> 3 . The builder prepared a third layout with a turn-around <br /> "Y", which could have been modified to satisfy both the one <br /> driveway rule and the 20-foot wide rule (enclosed as "Choice <br /> #3") . It was also rejected, because it would occupy more <br /> than 1000 square feet (50 ' x 20' ) in the front set-back <br /> area. <br /> 4 . You proposed and the builder accepted a fourth layout, <br /> consisting of a straight 14-foot wide driveway that widened <br /> at the front of the three-car garage (enclosed as "Choice <br /> #4n� . <br /> If my recitation of the facts is not completely accurate, please <br /> forgive me, because most of this is second hand. However, it is <br /> clear that on this particular lot a looped driveway would be the <br /> safest and most sensible layout, as well as a more aesthetic <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.