My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
05-26-1998 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
1998
>
05-26-1998 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/5/2024 2:21:33 PM
Creation date
6/5/2024 2:15:22 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.
/
548
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
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMNOSSION <br />MEETING HELD ON MARCH 16, 1998 <br />(#2 - #2340 Robert Waade - Continued) <br />Mabusth askel if the applicant would meet the area requirement if given credit for the <br />ponding. Gaf&on indicated there would only be a very minor underage. <br />Mabusth asked if the duplex would be served by Outlot B. Gaffron indicated it would and <br />noted that the standard calls for no more than two units being accessed off the 30' <br />corridor. The reason behind the standard is to limit the units as three units would require <br />a road. There may be a hardcover issue if the access was changed. <br />Stoddard felt the variances for the widths of Outlots A and B made se.ise as it would <br />allow for smaller roadway and lessen the hardcover. He noted that the property is allowed <br />a duplex under the code and felt the road issue was not substantial enough to show any <br />opposition. <br />Mabusth asked what the absent Commissioners felt about the issues. Smith indicated that <br />Lindquist was concerned with the number of variances and did not want to encourage <br />their need. <br />Gaffron said the duplex requires a 135' minimum width. The lot width as defined by CoRd <br />51 does not meet the requirement. It is only met if the width is defined along the private <br />road outlot. The upper lot has about 121' width and the lower lot has 122'. If the <br />"exception" segment in the front of the lot is considered there would be about 140'. <br />Mabusth noted there would be a hardcover problem if additional driveway was necessary <br />for three dwellings on one driveway outlot. The driveway would be minimized with two <br />dwellings on one access. <br />Berg asked if the proposed units would be rental units. Waade said he would live in the <br />single family home and rent out the duplex. Gaffron indicated the duplex would have to <br />be rental units as the ownership of the duplex cannot be split into individual units under <br />the City ordinances. <br />Smith noted that all of the Commissioners at the last meeting were opposed to providing <br />riparian rights for the duplex. <br />Mabusth asked if the sewer locations have been reviewed. The issue of easements needs <br />to be resolved as well. Mabusth noted the need for a hold harmless agreement for the <br />City Gaffron said the manholes would have to be raised as well. Waade said the bermed <br />area would be built up about 5', and he would like to plant a row of pine trees for <br />screening. Commissioners voiced their support. Smith asked what type of landscaping <br />would be planted. Waade said he would like to add about 8-10 arborvitae trees on top of <br />the berm to make a hedge.
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.