Laserfiche WebLink
7 <br /> ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING <br /> MINUTES FOR MAY 26, 1998 <br /> (#22) County Road 6 Right-Of-Way Acquisition and Robert and Julie Hanning Subdivision <br /> Plan at 4220 Sixth Avenue North - continued <br /> Hanning noted that this is the second time the County has taken a portion of this property. <br /> Jabbour felt the Council should take the position that anything the County has taken should not <br /> render the property as an unbuildable lot. Kelley agreed, giving the example that if the County <br /> takes 1/4 acre, only 4 3/4 acre should be required for a buildable lot. <br /> Hanning asked about driveway access. Kelley thought the County would appreciate one curb cut <br /> for both properties. Kelley suggested a small outlot on the larger parcel to serve both parcels. <br /> Flint asked why an outlot should be created rather than granting an easement. Kelley responded <br /> that it would be up to Hanning to decide which option would be better. <br /> Jabbour noted three problems as follows: <br /> 1. If the County is taking part of the property, is there still a buildable lot? The <br /> consensus has been that whatever is taken out will be reduced from the required <br /> lot size. <br /> 2. How can the City make the assurance that there are two buildable lots to the <br /> Hannings? <br /> 3. How would the final subdivision be configured? <br /> Barrett asked if the concession of reducing the 5 acre minimum by the amount that the County <br /> takes is a form of compensation. Jabbour thought it would be. <br /> Flint asked why the Hannings did not want to proceed with the subdivision at this time. Hanning <br /> responded that if he did the subdivision now, it reduces his future options. He may choose not <br /> to ever do the subdivision, his property taxes are affected, and the value of his home may be <br /> lowered. <br /> Kelley felt the Hannings were taking a risk since the current Council could not bind future <br /> Councils. <br /> Barrett stated that to get some type of binding contract, an agreement would have to be made <br /> with the County. <br /> Jabbour added that the right-of-way was only 22,000 s.f. If that were divided between two lots, <br /> a reduction of 11,000 s.f. is very minimal. Hanning responded that it may not seem like much <br /> but could make a difference. Moorse added that the right-of-way is proposed at 1/4 acre, just <br /> over the top of the berm. <br /> 25 <br />