My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
09-22-1997 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
1997
>
09-22-1997 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/1/2023 9:54:55 AM
Creation date
8/1/2023 9:50:53 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.
/
426
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 />MEETING HELD ON AUGUST 18. 1997 <br />(U2 - #2279/^2280 M^c &nd Tracy Whitehead - Cootinued) <br />Whitehead noted that this is the second review of the property. She thought the changing <br />of the cul-de-sac to a shared driveway would enable her to gain the alternate septic site for <br />Lot 4. Whitehead indicated that there is 5.89 acres between Lots 1 and 2 questioning <br />whether Lot 2 would need a lot area variance Schroeder received confirmation from <br />Ga&on that H would create a front lot/back lot scenario. Schroeder noted that lot area <br />variances are tvnicallv not aooroved for new subdivision <br />Lindquist reiterated that he would not approve the application without two septic sites for <br />Lot 4, noting that even vnth Outlet B, there is still a problem. Whitehead acknowledged <br />that the ahemate septic site would still be located underneath the driveway. <br />Whitehead asked how it would work if Lots 2 and 4 were combined. Lindquist said H <br />would become one lot. and the shared driveway should be at least 50' from the <br />neighboring property. Whitehead said a 50' setback is not required. Gaffi’on confirmed <br />that only a 30' setback would be required as it becomes a side street. If it was an outlot <br />driveway, the house to the driveway would be 50'. Schroeder noted there is ample room <br />to meet that setback. <br />Whiteh^d said the Stankovsk/s home was shown at 74' from the lot line when the plan <br />was reviewed for its construction but was subsequently built at 31'. She said the 1.13 acr^ <br />StankovslQ' lot was to be built on the existing pad but expanded out from it. Schroeder <br />indicted that this is a seoarate matter but acknowledeed it should not have occurred. He <br />was informed that the Stankovsky house was built 11 years ago. Schroeder noted with a <br />3-k)t subdivision, the Stankovsky*s should be able to acquire additional land from the <br />Wbtehead’s. Whitehead said they have considered that possibility but noted that the <br />driveway would require a retaining wall. McMillan suggested going around to the <br />northeast side of the old Lot 4. Whitehead said that area was too steep. <br />Whitehead asked if the application could be presented to the Council at their September 8 <br />meeting. Schroeder said he felt there was a lack of necessary information for that to <br />occur.' Gaffi-on suggested further review at the September 15 Planning Commission <br />meeting for Council consideration at the September 22 Council meeting. <br />GafiBron indicated that the lot lines for Lots 2 and 3 should be changed to meet the 200* <br />width requirement under the 3-lot subdivision as noted above. Whitehead thought this <br />could occur. <br />Schroeder suggested, if the Planning Commission was in agreement with the plan as <br />noted, time would be allowed for the Whitehead's to work with thdr neighbors. Smith <br />agreed wth Schroeder.
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.