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
Zoning File #1683 <br />September 9, 1991 <br />Page 3 <br />Otlier Issues <br />Whether or not Outlot A is allowed to be constructed as <br />gi0i^0ly a driveway, staff would recommend that it be given a <br />street name and lots be assigned addresses such that no address <br />changes would be needed upon future subdivision of the property. <br />Both Lots 1 and 2 would be subject to the Park Fee <br />Ordinance. This subdivision has been submitted to the Public <br />Works Director for review by the Park Commission, and the City <br />Engineer for comment. There are no designated wetlands on the <br />property. <br />No site grading or drainage plan has been presented, nor has <br />a topographic survey been submitted. There is a potential for <br />drainage from this project affecting the Hackberry Hill 1/2 acre <br />severed development to the east. The City Engineer advises that <br />a topographic survey should be required now in order to <br />adequately address the drainage concerns as well as a concept <br />plan for the ultimate development of the property. <br />Issues to Resolve <br />1. Should the existing house be forced to relocate its <br />driveway to Outlot A? <br />2. Should the applicant be required at this time to <br />construct a 24 foot paved road with 100 foot diameter <br />cul-de-sac? <br />3. Bave drainage concerns been adequately addressed? <br />Staff Rsi r—snilstlon <br />Given that each lot has sufficient area, width along an <br />Outlot, and primary and alternate drain field sites tested, the <br />2-acre lot standards appear to be met. The Planning Commission <br />pust determine whether sufficient justification exists to allow <br />Outlot A to contain merely a private driveway serving two lots at <br />this time, and if so, should determine what threshold of future <br />development would trigger upgrading of that driveway to private <br />road standards. <br />Staff reconnends that full topography of the 20-acre parcel <br />and a concept plan and drainage plan be submitted, and the J <br />Planning Cosiuission may wish to table pending receipt of that<^\) <br />Information. ^ <br />&
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.