My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
11-12-1991 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
1991
>
11-12-1991 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2024 12:14:09 PM
Creation date
7/23/2024 12:09:21 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.
/
512
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
N <br />Sonlng Pile #1683 <br />November 5, 1991 <br />9ege 2 <br />Nlea^aq Commieeioii Recoamendation <br />At their October 21 meeting. Planning Commission voted 3 to <br />?• to table the request until the grading plan is submitted. <br />There appears to be unanimous intent to require a ful) grading <br />plan but disagreement on who should review it. <br />Four of six Planning Commissioners at the October 21 meeting <br />generally favored construction of a paved road and cul-de-sac <br />rather than merely a driveway. <br />After much discussion (see 10/21/91 minutes) Planning <br />Commission voted 3 to 3 on a motion to deny based on: <br />1. Proposed plan does not include paved road. <br />2. Paved road should be required consistent with City <br />codes for 3-lot plat. <br />3. Lack of grading plan. <br />Based on this split recommendation. Planning Commission sent <br />this application on for Council review. <br />leemee to Iteeolve <br />The following appear to be outstanding lss<'«s that Council <br />must address in order to grant conceptual preliminary plat <br />approvali <br />1. Should a grading plan for the entire property be <br />submitted by the applicant? It would be staff's intent <br />to review this grading plan prior to recommending <br />preliminary plat approval- <br />2. Is this a 3-lot plat? If so, does Council wish to <br />grant a variance to allow construction ot merely a <br />driveway to serve the two proposed lots, or require a <br />paved road and cul-de-sac? <br />3. Should the existing house be forced to relocate its <br />driveway to Outlot A? <br />Altemete Scmerio - Tvo-Stage Subdivisioo Process <br />Applicant's agent T.J. Raislet has suggested that this <br />application could have been presented in a somewhat contrived <br />tve*stege process in order to avoid the need for a paved road and <br />eiil-de-sac. Briefly, the two stages would have beent <br />1. Metes and bounds lot line rearrangement/combiustion <br />resulting in a 19>acre parcel and a 9-acre parcel. <br />2* Subdivision of 5-acre parcel into two 2-acre lots plus <br />future road outlot.
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.