Project Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR APRIL 12, 1999 (#8) #2465 Robert Erickson, 364 and 372 Westlake Street-Lot Line Rearrangement- Resolution No. 4266 Kelley moved, Sansevere seconded, to approve Application #2465, 364 and 372 Westlake Street, and adopt RESOLUTION NO. 4266, Approving a Subdivision of a Lot Line Rearrangement for Properties Located at 364 and 372 Westlake Street; Granting of Variances to Municipal Code Section 10.23, Subdivision 6(B) and Section 10.56, Subdivision 16(C)(6); and Closing of a Portion of Westlake Street. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. (#9) #2466 James Renckens, having an interest in 3020 Watertown Road-2 Lot Preliminary Subdivision James Renckens and John Winston, applicants, were present. Renckens said he objects to the requirement that two outlets be created. He is concerned · about the availability of septic sites if the outlets are created. He said the site is rolling and high to the north, rolling in the middle and there is a wetland in the middle. The parcel is difficult to develop. He would like to build his home on the northern part of the property. There is one septic site in the northeast comer that he would like to use as a primary site and it would be eliminated by the 50' outlet. He said the ambiance of that comer is what attracted them to the property and that would be ruined if a road is installed. He requested that the Council eliminate the requirement for the outlets. Mayor Jabbour unseated himself for this item. John Winston said his property abuts the northeastern part of the parcel. He and his neighbors oppose the 50' outlet across the northern boundary. They are not interested in connecting Wear Lane to Crystal Creek Road. He said the original proposal for this parcel was a subdivision for five lots. This proposal is for two lots. He feels the low density is important and that the outlets are not necessary. He said they are not proposing any roadway, only a driveway corridor at the southwesterly comer of the parcel. He would like to preserve the character of this property that blends with the neighborhoods to the east and the west. He said . there is property to the north that could possibly be developed. He does not feel that Mr. Renckens should have to provide access to that property by creating Outlet B. Sanseve,re asked staff why the outlets were made a contingency of approval. Weinberger stated that the proposal creates a front lot and a back lot situation. The subdivision ordinance does not allow a flag lot to be created. The back lot is required to have 150% of the zoning district requirements and the lot does meet those requirements. The zoning code only allows access to be granted to that property through a platted outlot. The disadvantage for the property owners in this situation is the area in the outlet does not count for the lot area as part of lot 1, although the entire outlet would be in their ownership. The Page9