07-22-1996 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINIFTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON JULY 8,1996 (#7 - #2136 Greenfield Corporation - Continued) Mabusth reported that the application was tabled at the June 10 Council meeting in order to amend the plan of the 6-lot subdivision for removal of the private road outlot with cul- de-sac serving lots 1,3, and 4 and replace with a private driveway outlot along the northern property line. This has resulted in reductions in the width variance Lot 1 would no longer require a variance. Lot 3 is 142* wide, and lot 4 is 150' in width. Mabusth added that Staff sees no reason for a temporary cul-de-sac for a driveway outlot at less than 300* located at the northeast comer if a back-up apron was constructed within road outlot for use of emergency and larger vehicles. Mabusth said a concern of Staff' was the definition of *he access with the elongated lots as Greenfieid Corporation will not be the builder Another concern *s the access being from the north and not outlot B extension if the builder wants the house on lot 3 located to the south. Staff would recommend that no building be allowed south of the septic sites on lot 3 to include both principal accessory structures Kelley asked Mabusth to define front and rear. Mabusth said this is determined by code for a "comer lot" Kelley said, if that is the case, why couldn't the resolution state where the front is located without the need to state where the access is located. Kelley said the question would then be if the access by front defines the front in the code. Mabusth saw no problem with this recommeiKlation if Council was in agreement. (Hurr arrived at this time.) Kelley said the house could be located in different directions if desired. Mabusth noted the need to maintain a 30* setback to the side. Kelley questioned why the access could not be allowed off of Outlot B Mabusth said it was a matter of aesthetics or design with the mass of the residence facing the side lot line. Kelley was informed that the zoning is 2 acre but the widths were substandard. Jabbour added that residents move to this zoning district to enjoy larger setbacks. It was noted that Hurr originally suggested eliminating the driveway outlot Pfennig had no additional comments at tiis time but to note Staffs thoroughness and detail. Goetten said she was still concerned with gerrymandering the lots in order to justify one additional lot. She said she was not in favor of the subdivision noting her concern with the building envelopes, the septic areas, the drainftelds. and the need for variances. Goetten said the code should be adhered to and thought a PRD would be a better option Kelley said there was not alot the Council could do if only a variance was required. Goetten disagreed noting one lot could be eliminated.