My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
10-18-1976 Planning Packet
Orono
>
Agendas, Minutes & Packets
>
Planning Commission
>
Packets
>
1970-1979
>
1976
>
10-18-1976 Planning Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/22/2023 10:19:15 AM
Creation date
6/22/2023 10:17:43 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
53
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
, <br />S OF A PLAI'INING COfllSSlUN MEETING HELD SEPIBiBER 20, 1976 - PAGE 2 <br />used for the new access road to his other lot. Any unused <br />portion would be removed. The Planning Comnission also <br />asked Mr. Ryan if he was suing the City on the 73-1 sewer <br />assessment. He stated that he was not. Ihe public hear <br />ing was closed at 7:55 p.m. <br />The Planning Commission continued to discuss this proposal. <br />Merijer Van Nest felt that this parcel should be subdivided <br />so as to create only one lakeshore lot as both lots would <br />then meet all code requirements. Mr. Ryan felt that two <br />l^eshore lots were not unreasonable as they would be con <br />sistent with the other lots in the area. Also, the sewer <br />is in front of the lots. Mr, Ward Parten and Harry Larson, <br />neighbors present at this meeting, agreed with Mr. Ryan. <br />After continued discussion, Pesek moved, Guthrie seconded, <br />to ^prove this subdivision based on the following: <br />(1) It is consistent with the neighbors. <br />(2) It is the only logical way to subdivide. <br />(3) Consists of two acres with two sewer assessments. <br />(4) Lot is not wide enough to confoim with the two <br />lots on either side. <br />(5) Conditioned on the fact that Mr. Ryan is not <br />suing the City on the 73-1 Sewer Assessment, <br />(6) Subject to a Park Dedication Fee. <br />Motion: Ayes - 2 (Pesek, Guthrie), Nays - 3 (Hosfield, <br />Van Nest, Dunlap), Abstain - 3 (Hake, Hannah, McDonald). <br />The Planning Comnission Aen tabled the matter and suggested <br />to ^fa*, Ryan that he submit a revised proposal vhich would <br />meet both lot area and width requirements. <br />Chairwoman Dunlap announced that this was the time and <br />place for a public hearing on the petition of Hugh Harrison <br />for a subdivision of property located at 1305 Sixth Avenue N. <br />The Zoning Administrator presented the Notice of Public <br />Hearing and the Affadavit of Riblication. The proposal is <br />to split off 8 acres from the original 42.7 acres to remain <br />as the site of the present home. The remaining 34.7 acres <br />would be left as the site for a new home. The access to <br />the new house would branch off tlie existing private drive. <br />Don Umd, George levering and several other neighbors were <br />present and interested in knowing how this land was going <br />to be subdivided. No one had any objections. The public <br />hearing was closed at 8:35 p.m. <br />After a short discussion. Hake moved, Hannah seconded, to <br />recOTmend approval of the preliminary subdivision proposal <br />based on the fact tliat no variances are required, subject <br />to ^e fact that the new structure require no variance and <br />subject to a Park Dedication Fee. Motion - Ayes (8), <br />Nays (0). <br />THCMAS RYAN <br />(continued) <br />HUGH HARRISON <br />1305 SIXTH AVENUE N. <br />SUBDIVISION (PRELIMIi>lARy)
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.