My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
04-23-1990 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
1990
>
04-23-1990 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/22/2024 11:54:57 AM
Creation date
10/22/2024 11:54:22 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.
/
266
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
Ms. Jeanne A. Mabusth <br />April 16, 1990 <br />Page 2 <br />We are hereby requesting that the Orono City Council <br />formally approve the use of looped driveways in Sugar Woods, <br />because straight driveways are already proving to be impractical <br />and unsafe. Looped driveways are common in Orono and should be <br />allowed in Sugar Woods. If the City Council agrees, it could pass <br />a resolution interpreting Paragraph F of Resolution 2652 ao <br />allowing looped driveways or it could pass a resolution amending <br />said Paragraph F. In either case, no driveway should be more <br />than 20 feet wide as it passes through the 50-foot wide front <br />setback area. <br />The question of looped driveways arose recently with the <br />application for a building permit for a house to be built by <br />Steiner & Koppelman on Lot 2, Block 2, Sugar Woods. I understand <br />that several driveway layouts were proposed, namely the <br />following: <br />1. The builder proposed to build a looped driveway with <br />the enclosed layout ("Choice #1"). It was rejected, because <br />it involved two driveways that cut through the 50-foot area <br />front setback area. <br />2. The builder proposed an alternate layout consisting of <br />a straight driveway with a turn-around circle (enclosed as <br />"Choice #2"). It was rejected, because portions of the <br />driveway were more than 20 feet wide within the 50-foot <br />front setback. <br />3. The builder prepared a third layout with a turn-around <br />"Y", which could have been modified to satisfy both the one <br />driveway rule and the 20-foot wide rule (enclosed as "Choice <br />#3"). It was also rejected, because it would occupy more <br />than 1000 square feet (50' x 20') in the front set-back <br />area. <br />4. You proposed and the builder accepted a fourth layout, <br />consisting of a straight 14-foot wide driveway that widened <br />at the front of the three-car garage (enclosed as "Choice <br />#4"). <br />If my recitation of the facts is not completely accurate, please <br />forgive me, because most of this is second hand. However, it is <br />clear that on this particular lot a looped driveway would be the <br />safest and most sensible layout, as well as a more aesthetic
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.