My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
09-11-2000 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
2000
>
09-11-2000 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/15/2023 9:27:49 AM
Creation date
3/15/2023 9:24:30 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.
/
283
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
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION <br />JUNE 19,2000 <br />(W596 BRENSHELL HOMES, CONTINUED) <br />City Staff is recommending this application be tabled until the next Planning Commission meeting <br />in order to give the Applicant time to resolve some of these issues. <br />Steve Behnke stated he has a number of questions relating to the issues raised in the Platmer’s <br />report. Behnke stated currently in his view Garden Lane as being required because of Lot 64, <br />which is the lot to the north being a potential public access to a private lot. Behnke stated in <br />his opinion Lot 1 does show over one-half acre dry buildable outside of the NURP pond, with the <br />engineer for this development calculating two-thirds dry buildable on this lot. Lots 2 and 3, <br />lot width variances would not be necessaty since at Wildhurst Trail the lots are 224’ and 153’, and <br />if measured along the setback, there is the potential that they are less than 140’, but are obviously <br />greater in width across the northern section. Behnke pointed out both lots will be located on a <br />cul-de-sac. Behnke stated it was on the recommendation of City' Staff that this plan took the approach <br />from Garden Lane. Lot 4 also contains enough frontage along Garden Lane and would not need a <br />variance. <br />Behnke acknowledged that there are issues relating to grading and drainage concerning this <br />property', which will need to be addressed further. Behnke stated it is his opinion that Lot 6 and <br />the rav*ine have been addressed. Behnke noted they have adopted the DNR’s definition of a bluff <br />as the method of determining the top of the ravine. The top of the ravine does not extend to <br />Garden Lane and ends prior to it, and because of that, the acreage on both sides is being incorporated <br />into the dry' buildable acres. Behnke stated the driveway does not impact the ravine proper as <br />defined by the bluff definition. Behnke stated Lot 6 consists of approximately 1.25 acres in size, <br />and they would be able to manipulate the lot line if necessary. <br />Behnke commented the current division of water between the north and south is essentially <br />equivalent to what it was prior to this plan being created, with this development not increasing <br />the water runoff. Behnke stated the intention of the NURP pond is to hold the w'ater to allow it <br />to drain to the ravine at the same rate that it is currently. Behnke stated the water that drains to <br />this property' offsite is also included in the NURP pond proposed for Lot 1. <br />Behnke stated the comment by the City Engineer that all drainage be directed to the north is <br />opposite the natural direction of the water. Behnke stated in his view there arc some inaccuracies <br />in the statements by the City Engineer. <br />Behnke stated in his opinion he should not be responsible to extend Garden Lane to the north as <br />part of this project since they arc offsite. Behnke indicated they are in agreement with the standard <br />easements and that Outlot A should be a public right-of-way, w ith the road being a public road due <br />to the number of houses that w ill be serviced by it. <br />Behnke stated they will continue to work with City Staff on those issues. Behnke noted the proposed <br />drainage for this development is designed to keep the water runoff at the same rate as what <br />currently exists in the ravine. <br />Weinberger stated regardless of the one-half acre dr>' contiguous, these lots are located within the <br />one acre zoning district and st'll require the one acre dry' buildable regardless of being separated by <br />a drainage area. Weinberger stated Lot 6 does meet this require.'nent, with Lot 1 being less than one <br />PAGE 21
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.