My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
05-29-1990 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
1990
>
05-29-1990 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/29/2024 2:58:10 PM
Creation date
10/29/2024 2:54:59 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.
/
434
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 />Fron: <br />Planning Conunission Chairman Kelley <br />Orono Planning Commission Members <br />City Administrator Bernhardson <br />Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning & Zoning Administrator <br />Date: May 16, 1990 <br />Subject: #1516 Mr. & Mrs. Whitney MacMillan, etal, <br />1560, 1580 and 1620 Fox Street - <br />Preliminary Subdivision - Revised Proposal - <br />Continuation of Public Hearing <br />List of Exhibits <br />Exhibit A - Revised Proposal (large plan) <br />Exhibit B - Notice of Planning Commission Action 4/26/90 <br />Exhibit C - Planning Commission Minutes 4/16/90 <br />Exhibit D - Memo & Exhibits of 4/13/90 <br />Discussion - <br />At the April meeting. Planning Commission made the following <br />general comments about this application: <br />1. No requirement to build the cul-de-sac, but it should be <br />platted. <br />2. No need to realign Outlet C (road) at the point it abuts <br />the Norton property. <br />3. Road upgrade not required until Outlet B is developed. <br />4. Lot 1, Bloclc 1 if developed must use existing westerly <br />driveway off of Fox Street. <br />5. Tennis court on Lot 1, Bloclc 1 must be removed if house <br />on that lot is removed. <br />6. If house on Lot 1, Block 1 is bisected by the proposed <br />lot line, it would have to be removed before a building <br />permit could be issued for Lot 2, Block 1. <br />Applicants have revised their proposal (Exhibit A) to leave <br />the existing house on Lot 1, Block 1 entirely within that lot and <br />meeting the necessary 50' rear setback. Further, the applicants <br />have platted a cul-de-sac near the northwest property boundary as <br />recommended, and have left Outlet B with enough frontage and lot <br />width to be considered as a future building site without <br />variances upon Council approval.
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.