My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
10-16-1995 Planning Packet
Orono
>
Agendas, Minutes & Packets
>
Planning Commission
>
Packets
>
1990-1999
>
1995
>
10-16-1995 Planning Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/4/2023 2:42:56 PM
Creation date
10/4/2023 2:29:51 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.
/
470
PDF
View images
View plain text
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION <br />MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 16, 1995 <br />(#15 - #2077 Replat and Vacation - Continued) <br />Mabusth reviewed the street vacation application. Parcel A, the Knight property, is <br />located in the LR-IB zone within the MUSA. Knight could ask for sewering of this <br />property as well as subdivide with as many as three lots. If vacation of the only two public <br />accesses to this property is approved, the City must provide access to a public road. The <br />City approved a lot area variance for Lots 1-4, Block 3. <br />Mabusth said she met with the applicants and found that it may be possible to maintain <br />public access from Linden but with the loss of one small lot. The applicant would give 50' <br />so there would be no need to enter the Bennett property. If a cul-de-sac were to be built, <br />there were several options as to the location. Mabusth said Bennett indicated he would <br />withdraw his application if required to dedicate a cul-de-sac. 20 additional feet will be <br />sought for Linden Avenue. <br />The Planning Commissioners had questioned whether a loop road would be an alternative <br />in this subdivision. Mabusth said the applicants would lose the whole purpose for the <br />leplat if they went to that configuration. It is the applicants plan for Lots 1 and 2 to share <br />access up to where Clyde Place is to be vacated and then branch off to their individual <br />homes. Lot 3 would continue to gain access as it does now. <br />Schroeder asked if the problem with Bennett giving any private dedication was that there <br />was no benefit to his property. He suggested that Knight cut through the easement to give <br />the benefit to Bennett. Knight responded that he did not wish to do so as the aesthetics of <br />the driveway with driving through a canopy of trees would be lost. Schroeder said the <br />alternate would be the cul-de-sac should Knight subdivide. <br />Lindquist clarified that the City needs to provide an opportunity for public access to <br />Knight. <br />Hawn asked if there was not a grandfathering of the existing easement for ingress and <br />egress if Knight were to subdivide. Honmeyer said it would not meet the requirement for <br />public roads. It was suggested that some land be purchased from Bennett. The applicants <br />said they would desire for this to happen. Knight noted that this is why he recommends <br />no action taken until all parties can discuss the applications. <br />Honmeyer said if land could be purcahsed from Bennett, Knight would have his access. <br />50' is needed for the access but the properties would be dealing with more intense use in <br />the future. There is a possibile division of three lots on the Knight property. Honmeyer <br />said he would wish to keep the back portion of the property as buildable. <br />Lindquist acknowledged that access to the Knight property would need to be worked out.
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
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).