My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
07-10-1995 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
1995
>
07-10-1995 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/6/2023 11:18:52 AM
Creation date
10/6/2023 11:11:12 AM
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.
/
471
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
I* ^ <br />1^ • <br />MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION <br />MEETING HELD ON MARCH 20, 1995 <br />1)0 <br />(#7 - #2002 William Smith - Continued) <br />In discussing the RLS road to the west, the Applicant reported haring spoken to the <br />access comes from. <br />Another option discussed was a new driveway from Fox Street, either wh a new curfr cut <br />or the use of the existing curb cut with an immediate turn to the west. Mabusih said she <br />would check with Gerhardson regarding a riew curb cut; but at this time, she was not <br />certain that this option would meet Council s approv <br />During Commission discussion. Nolan said that the the current driveway wo'dd need <br />uoaradinR, even if maintained with two lots, as no mamtenance has been done on it. <br />Nolan alS said that this proposal has never been done m the past and sees no reason to <br />allow it at this time Mabusth responded that we have discussed what the code requires <br />and have not examined the statement of hardships prepared by applicant seekmg vananccs <br />to code requirements. <br />Rowlene said she was interested in using the other curb cut off of Fox Street, and dws <br />not see the propeitv as having three lots Rowlette ead from the 1985 resolution w>>eru <br />Ts issue was discussed t he'resolution determine.: at that time that the subdivision could <br />only be done if code could be met. <br />Lindquist felt that a separate curb cut and separate driveway were the only alternatives, <br />Mabusth was asked if City had ever approved a 3 lot division sen ed by a dnveway. <br />Mabusth referred to the Stronghold subdivision in the 1980's that aUowed for a vanance <br />and approved access via a driveway. <br />Schroeder responded that an aesthetic argument is not a good reason for a variance ^d <br />saw Fox Run as the best alternative His second choice was use of the original dnvew ay. <br />and third best, another private road Schroeder said the applicant need^ to ^hai^t ^1 <br />av enues with obtaining the use of Fox Run as an access If tins is not ^ <br />and Rowlene said it was their opinion that this was not a subdivision. Mabusth concurrea <br />that the use of the e.xisting dnveway, the new road off the e.xisting road, or the new euro <br />cut were not viable options unless the commission were willing to approve the necessary <br />variances The code calls for a private road to serve three lots.
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.