My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
10-10-1994 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
1994
>
10-10-1994 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/11/2023 11:39:22 AM
Creation date
12/11/2023 11:35:36 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.
/
337
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
Remuest for Council Action continued <br />page 2 of 5 <br />October 6, 19W <br />Zoning File #1967 ______ <br />s* A • <br />I »Backg rou nd <br />Applicants had initiallv included the adjacem Irvin Geffre property at 4665 <br />Bayside in a proposed plat to crude fivv new building sites. <br />Applicants worked with staff regarding road layout and sepck requirements for <br />that proposal and conchickd that ordy four new lots weald be possible. <br />Concturenlly. K-P Properties has been idlempting to acquire the Fred and David <br />White acreage to the immediate west, but have been unsuccessful to-date, <br />although such a transaction is still being pursued. <br />Rather than proceed with the four lot aibdivision, jtist prior to the Planning <br />Commission meeting applicams revised the proposal to merely splitting off the <br />Olson residence and leaving the remaining Olson acreage for development later <br />this year or early next year. <br />Applicants consulted with suff to accomplish such a subdivision that would not <br />leave the remaining acreage landlocked, and which would result in the existing <br />residence requiring no variances regardless of whether a future subdivision <br />occurs. <br />Planning Conni» ♦ H H I : I; I Denial Recommendation <br />Planning Commission reviewed the conceptual information provided by the applicant and staff s <br />concerns (see memo of 9/15/94). Given the lack of septic testing and only having conceptual <br />sketches rather than the formal survey work to review. Planning Commission offered applicant <br />tabling or denial. An>lkant requested a denial in order to move this along to the Council since <br />Mr. Olson and the buyer of his house wish to close on the property as soon as possible. <br />Planning Commission suggested that applicant work with staff to prepare a subdivision plan for <br />presentation to Council. <br />Outlols Intended for Future Development <br />Staff advised applicants that splitting off the residence lot must not leave the remaining acreage <br />landlocked. Potential access to the remaining 14 acres is through Lot 1 or from Bayside through <br />White’s property, which applicants don’t control.
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.