06-24-1996 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON JUNE 10. 1996 (#6 - #2136 Greenfield Corporation - Continued) Kelley noted that lot 4 access would be in the first 50' of outlot B Cook said outlot A could be eliminated. Callahan asked what the function of outlot B was? Gronberg said it was for the purpose of future dev elopment for site distance. Laurie Lundeen asked Mabusth to explain the plans Mabusth said, based on earlier directions of the City, the northeast comer was selected during the Olson subdivision as the best access for the subject property and property to immediate east. Goctten questioned why this developer has to provide the access for another development which has yet to be planned? Mabusth noted Staff is following directions of Council. Hurr asked why a shared road could not occur. Mabusth said it would eventually happen but would need a turnaround. Mabusth informed Callahan that the cul-de-sac in outlot B is necessary to provide a turnaround for emergency vehicles Lots 3 and 4 would be accessed from outlot B if the cut was made from the top. If there was to be a shared driveway for lots 1 and 3 and bring a platted driveway down for lot 4 and the property to the east, a permanent cul-de- sac would be installed at a later date It was discussed that outlot A could be eliminated, and leave outlot B as the main access road, and an easement taken from lot 4 for a temporary turnaround to eliminate any setback restrictions The easement would then go away when the future road was built. Hurr asked if the drainsites meet the setback? Mabusth said they did. They are located mainly downhill. One site is at for lot 6. Hurr was informed that the average distance from the house to the septic sites was 300-400' for lots 2. 3, and 4. Gaffron said this was unusual and pumping would occur but was not limiting these sites. Goetten said she was concerned that, when looking a*, the entire subdivision, gerrymandering was occurring to make 6 building lots. Goetten said she was not in favor of the subdiv ision as proposed. Gronberg likened it to a PUD with clustering of building sites. Lots 5 and 6 were noted to meet standards. Hurr noted that there was no standard in the code that requires lot width to be maintained for a specified distance. Mabusth concurred. Goetten said lots would still need to access a temporary cul-de-sac. Mabusth said lots 1, 3, and 4 would all come in at the northeast comer via the revised road outlot. 1