My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
11-08-1999 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
1999
>
11-08-1999 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/19/2023 12:54:48 PM
Creation date
4/19/2023 12:51:05 PM
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.
/
353
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
^^^^^JTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION <br />MEETING HELD ON FEBRUARY 17, 1998 <br />(#5 - #2339 James Render - Continued) <br />Gaffron confirmed for Lindquist that the other two options were a cul-de-sac or just a <br />road. Lindquist felt the 50 ‘ road should be dedicated and rem^n private until such time <br />that the road is extended. Lindquist noted the need to determine whether a T or cu - e- <br />sac should be built. <br />Render informed McM'Man that he would ask for an additional 17' to credit hardcover iii <br />return lor providing lav uedicated roadway. Gaffron informed McMillan that the typical <br />setbacks would be required. <br />Gaffron said the private road outlot would be dedicated the entire length. T^e City would <br />take an underlying easement. The Commissioners were in agreement with Gaffron s <br />recommendation for a 28' wide roadway. <br />The question remained of when the road should be extended and whether a T or cul-de- <br />sac Lindquist said he preferred the cul-de-sac but understood the conce^ of the <br />applicant if one was buQt. Smith suggested a shared driveway be allowed for two lots. <br />She recommended two driveways instead of the cul-de-sac. <br />Render clarifie J that the 28' wide private road would extend only to where the turnaround <br />would be located. Commissioners agreed. <br />Berg asreed with Smith in preferring no cul-de-sac. Gaffron asked if the shared dnveway <br />would be between lots 2 and 3. Render said the shared driveway would be located <br />between lots 1 and 2 for future access. <br />Lindquist moved, McMillan seconded, to approve Application #?2339 with the <br />understanding that the 50' right-of-way would e.xtend the complete length of the property <br />tlirough the Granting of 42' from the property owner in addition to the current 8 ot <br />ea- . ';it The road would be a 28' shared private road with a paved T turnaround. The <br />?• ilicant would be allowed a credit of a 17' strip of land for hardcover allotment. <br />Gronbei g asked if the road could be platted as a 25' outlot with an additional 17' <br />easement. Lindquist said it would have to be 50 ’ platted through 42' from property owner <br />and 8' from other properties. <br />Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. <br />(^^6) /#2340 ROBERT \YA-ADE» 3280 A>0) 3290 ^ <br />PRELIMINARY SUBDI\TSION WITH CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - 8.15- . . <br />P.M. <br />The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted.
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.