My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
08-14-2000 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
2000
>
08-14-2000 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/15/2023 9:28:31 AM
Creation date
3/15/2023 9:23:31 AM
Metadata
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
244
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).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
r- <br />r\. <br />MINUTES OF THE <br />ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br />JULY 17, 2000 <br />inquired whether it would be possible to waive the park dedication fee since the> currently have <br />almost a one-half acre of a conservation easement dedicated to the City. <br />Weinberger stated the park dedication fees are a result of the existing land and are required on each <br />new lot created. Weinberger noted the City Council makes the final determination on whether the <br />park dedication fee can be waived. Currently City Ordinance requires tliat a park <br />dedication fee be paid on every new lot created. <br />Graham indicated he has no further comments regarding his application, <br />There were no public comments regarding this application. <br />Smith inquired whether an outlot for this subdivision should be created to deal with the issues <br />relating to the shared driveway. <br />Gaffron stated the City typically \ 'll request an outlot be created in the situation of a baek lot/front <br />lot situation. Gaffron stated the City has many shared driveways at the present time. <br />Stoddard commented it was his understanding the City was attempting to keep away from <br />easements and request outlets. Stoddard noted this property consists of 5.1 acres, which may not <br />leave enough room for the creation of an outlot. <br />Gaffron stated the City tvpically docs not require an outlot on a shared driveway serving two <br />residences, but tends to look at it differently if there are more houses being serviced bv the <br />drive wav. <br />Stoddard stated that keeping the existing building may need to be reviewed further prior to <br />approval. <br />Lindquist inquired whether the two lots would be kept combined for ta.\ purposes. <br />Graham stated he would like to keep them combined. <br />Weinberger indicated once they are subdivided, they become two separate tax parcels. Weinberger <br />stated in a Class I t\pe subdivision, which would allow two conforming lots to be <br />PAGE 13
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.