10-13-1997 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

i I MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON SEPTEMBER 22,1997 (#4 - #2204 James Fullerton in - Continued) Goetten said she supported the subdivision but not the fee paid for parV dedication. She said she was in favor of moving forward with the subdivision. Keller moved, Flint seconded, to adopt Resolution No. 3964, a conditional use permit, and Resolution No. 3965, approving the plat of Fullerton Estates. Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 1, Goetten, due to her objection to the park dedication fee paid. (#5) #2279/#2280 MARC AND TRACY WHITEHEAD, 1220 LYMAN AVENUE - PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION APPROVAL - RESOLUTIONS NO. 3966 AND 3967 The applicant was present along with Attorney, John Winston, and Surveyor, Walter Gregory. Gaf&on reported that the proposed subdivision is before Council for preliminaiy plat approval. The property is located on Lyman Avenue and includes an existing residence. The road is partially public and partially private. The private portion is gravel and about 12' wide serving 5 residences with potential for one more. Two-thirds of a cul-de-sac at the end of Lyman, east side of the property, was previously granted to the City by other property owners, but has never been constructed. Gaffi*on indicated that this application was first submitted in 1990. The current proposal is for a 4-lot subdivision but revised per Planning Commission's recommendation to a 3- lot plat. The existing house is served by a platted driveway located outside the property on an easement. There were not a sufiQcient number of septic rite locations for the three additional lots. One site was unusuable because it is needed for access to Lot I. Gaffiron reviewed the access options. The initially proposed option was for a driveway that would traverse steep slopes and, therefore, was not recommended by staff. A cul- de-sac was then considered but found by the Planning Commission to negatively impact the Stankovsky property. It would result in the Stankovsky property becoming non conforming to the side setback requirements. The Planning Commission had recommended approval of a 3-lot plat. Lot 1 would be served by a private outlot driveway on Outlot B. Lot 1 is a back lot. Outlot A would be required to remain a 20' buffer to maintain a separation to the adjacent property and possibly may be sold to the Stankovsky's. Since the driveway is an outlot. Lot 1 is required to meet the 150% back lot area and setback standards. Staff recommended the east setback for Lot 1 of 50' as opposed to the required 75' for flexibility in location of the house The reasoning behind foe 150% requirement is regarding impacts on neighbors, which is not an issue at this location. 1