Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL <br />MEETING HELD ON JULY 8, 1996 <br />( #7) #2136 GREENFIELD CORPORATION, 180 NORTH SHORE DRIVE WEST • <br />- PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION - REVIEW OF AMENDED PLAN <br />Greenfield Corporation was represented by Jim Pfennig, Laurie Lundeen, and Mark <br />Gronberg. <br />Mabusth reported that the application was tabled at the June 10 Council meeting in order <br />to amend the plan of the 6 -lot subdivision for removal of the private road outlot with cul- <br />de -sac serving lots 1,3, and 4 and replace with a private driveway outlot along the <br />northern property line. This has resulted in reductions in the width variance. Lot 1 <br />would no longer require a variance. Lot 3 is 142' wide, and lot 4 is 150' in width. <br />Mabusth added that Staff sees no reason for a temporary cul -de -sac for a driveway outlot <br />at less than 300' located at the northeast corner if a back -up apron was constructed within <br />road outlot for use of emergency and larger vehicles. <br />Mabusth said a concern of Staff was the definition of the access with the elongated lots as <br />Greenfield Corporation will not be the builder. Another concern is the access being from <br />the north and not outlot B extension if the builder wants the house on lot 3 located to the <br />south. Staff would recommend that no building be allowed south of the septic sites on <br />lot 3 to include both principal accessory structures. <br />Kelley asked Mabusth to define front and rear. Mabusth said this is determined by code <br />for a "corner lot ". Kelley said, if that is the case, why couldn't the resolution state where • <br />the front is located without the need to state where the access is located. Kelley said the <br />question would then be if the access by front defines the front in the code. Mabusth saw <br />no problem with this recommendation if Council was in agreement. <br />(Hurr arrived at this time.) <br />Kelley said the house could be located in different directions if desired. Mabusth noted <br />the need to maintain a 30' setback to the side. Kelley questioned why the access could <br />not be allowed off of Outlot B. Mabusth said it was a matter of aesthetics or design with <br />the mass of the residence facing the side lot line. Kelley was informed that the zoning is 2 <br />acre but the widths were substandard. Jabbour added that residents move to this zoning <br />district to enjoy larger setbacks. <br />It was noted that Hurr originally suggested eliminating the driveway outlot. <br />Pfennig had no additional comments at this time but to note Staffs thoroughness and <br />detail. <br />0 <br />