My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
09-06-1977 Planning Packet
Orono
>
Planning Commission
>
1977
>
09-06-1977 Planning Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/24/2024 1:27:33 PM
Creation date
1/24/2024 12:32:30 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
181
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
mm <br />iDCt] <br />^iniit <br />riBCfl <br />ItJiMKtJ <br />15 itrator <br />fSS£t nt Road <br />Street Vacation <br />property vihich has for many years con- <br />as proposed on the attached survey would <br />le homes and each slightly exceeding the <br />squirement for this zone. The area <br />5ion of the street right of way line as <br />idth at the shore, but narrows to 62 ft. <br />ft. lot width requirement at the street, <br />ss strip. The existing house on Lot A <br />existing house on Lot B requires side <br />some City vacation of right of way and <br />ity. The result proposed is a recogni- <br />ot on the existing platted right of way. <br />cation across Mr. Moran's frontage, plus <br />nd Mr. Hartzell's properties should they <br />ion. The proposal as presented shows a <br />existing pavement width of 20 ft. The <br />Widening the prop>osed right of way^ <br />bran's division, but would be more in <br />t. to 60 ft. right of way. <br />ugust 1, 1977, at 7:45 p.m. <br />id parties. Conmission discussed the <br />enable each separate dwelling to have <br />le disadvantages of the proposed narrow <br />lack requirements) and the setback <br />ngs. Discussed the lot areas and the <br />right of way changes. <br />t iini <br />ed the advisability of correcting the <br />for having sufficient right of way <br />ig Commission felt that the proposed <br />le was inadequate. The engineer's <br />iff set) was considered as was the current <br />: Commission was concerned about the effects <br />id on this proposed subdivision. Mr. <br />te more than 10 ft. as shown. <br />[•Tivnfl <br />in and vacation applications for staff <br />alternative street widths <br />\ <br />f <br />Hamilton Moran - <br />Stabdivision ^ St <br />Page 2 <br />STAFF - August 2 <br />Street vacation <br />the paved road. <br />City recei* <br />City vacat <br />City vacat <br />City vacat <br />Total: 1, <br />Offset variatic <br />10 ft. (20 ft. <br />15 ft. (30 ft. <br />20 ft. (40 ft. <br />25 ft. (50 ft. <br />30 ft. (60 ft. <br />33 ft. (66 ft. <br />The attached m <br />varies from 10' <br />Beyond this ad <br />stretch of the <br />The plat appro <br />any street ded <br />from the cente <br />lot. <br />planning COM^II <br />Discussed prop <br />Planning Ccmmi <br />on the propose <br />mendations foi <br />specific locat <br />and land trans <br />circums tances. <br />STAFF - Augusi <br />y^HPARATE APPL <br />abutting or b< <br />would be expei <br />tiguous and c< <br />Each separate
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.