My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
04-27-1987 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
1987
>
04-27-1987 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/6/2026 10:59:09 AM
Creation date
3/6/2026 10:52:39 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
196
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
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL, MEETING HELD ic,— 13, 1987 <br />ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT: <br />i1007 ROBERT AND CARO*. TRAPP <br />4701 WEST BRANCH ROA1L <br />FINAL, SUBDIVISION <br />RESOLUTI Oh it j. 5 9 <br />Assistant Zoning Administrator Gaffron explained that <br />the applicant has requested that condition ##2 in the <br />resolution as follows be reviewed: <br />2. At such time that Highview Lane becomes a <br />developed City road, Lot 2 will be required to gain <br />access from Highview Lane. <br />Currently Lot 2 shall share a single driveway access to <br />County Road 151 located ov--r the existing driveway. <br />Highview Lane is currently undeveloped and applicant <br />requests that this be the option of the future homeowner <br />rather than a required condition. <br />Carol Trapp was present.. She stated that her reason for <br />this request is because of the high cost that would be <br />involved to the homeowner to vacate their existing <br />driveway and construct a new driveway access to Highview <br />Lane. <br />Assistant Zoning Administrator Gaffron explained staff's <br />concerns involving futur, property development. At this <br />point however, it is unknown when/or even if Highview <br />Lane would be upgraded. <br />City Administrator Bernhardson explained that should <br />Hiyhview bane ever be developed as a public road, and if <br />Lot 2 did not have required access on Highview Lane, <br />that property would contest any assessment for the <br />upgrading of lfighvier'w Lane. <br />Council felt that staff's concerns were valid, and <br />should this condition become a problem for the property <br />owner of 'he new lot in the fu,:ure, it could be <br />a1dresse' it that time. <br />it was )ved by Council.member lime, seconded by <br />Cruncilmember Goetten, to adopt Fesolution 12154 <br />approving the flat of Wert [;ranch Acres as drafted. <br />Motion, Ayes 4, Nays ('!. <br />1 109 3 P i A I NVI.:.TMF.NT' <br />1380 SIXTH AVENUE W)RTH <br />FINAL. SUBDIVISION <br />Lt KS01.UT I OW 171 6 0 <br />it was rrs: v- ; v %,1'ol.rc : lrr�•r l rr Sime, seconded ny <br />ccuncf 1 tr'embe•t I vt f r t c ld(t l t hes- 1 ut icin 12 160 <br />approvtr,y t1iu 1�'At (it Kr= 1 I M•irr,r as draft-4, Motion, <br />A Y P r.; $ , !.. t � , . <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.