My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
03-20-1995 Planning Packet
Orono
>
Planning Commission
>
1995
>
03-20-1995 Planning Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/27/2023 3:30:43 PM
Creation date
9/27/2023 3:26:26 PM
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.
/
207
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
Zoning Memo #2' <br />March 16, 1995 <br />Page 4 <br />a low wet area at the west side. Driveway curl) cut could be created but would involve major <br />land alterations and tree removal which now provide natural screening for surrounding <br />properties. The 20 ’ outlet would not meet the required width of 30 ’ for private driveway outlot <br />for a backloi configuration subdivision. <br />In reviewing the minutes of the Planning Commission and Council in 1961, there is little <br />direction. We are unable to determine the true intent of the driveway outlot - - how many lots <br />were to be served.^ We must deal with the current pattern of development and the directives of <br />the current code. Applicant should advise if he proposes to divide combined Parcels 3 and 4 <br />some time in the future. If this is the case, then we must address the need for a conforming <br />road outlot now with this subdivision. Based on current code standards, the applicant should <br />be advised that two riparian lots would not be approved but it may be possible with a replat to <br />create a non riparian lot. If it is not the intent of the applicant to subdivide the remaining larger <br />parcel, then the current layout with individual accesses (accesses that already exist) serving the <br />three residential sites may be acceptable to the City. Planning Commission should be prepared <br />to make a recommendation on the issue of access. <br />Issues for Consideration <br />1. <br />2. <br />3. <br />If the applicant advises that he proposes to divide combined Lots 3 and 4 in the future, <br />will you require platting of a private road with this subdivision? <br />If there is no intention of applicant to further subdivide combine Lots 3 and 4, will you <br />allow access to Lot 1 via an existing curb cut at Casco Point Road or will you require <br />access via the 20 ’ driveway outlot. <br />Should special consideration be given for lots previously approved by City in an earlier <br />subdivision review where lots meet current minimum lot standards? <br />4. Other issues raised by the Planning Commission. <br />Options of Action <br />To either approve or deny the current proposal; or <br />Table providing applicant additional tLne to address the need for an internal road providing <br />access to Lots 1,2, and combined Lots 3 and 4 and eventually a fourth lot in the future.
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.