07-08-1996 Council Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON JULY 8, 1996 • ( #7 - #2136 Greenfield Corporation - Continued) Goetten said she was still concerned with gerrymandering the lots in order to justify one additional lot. She said she was not in favor of the subdivision noting her concern with the building envelopes, the septic areas, the drainfields, and the need for variances. Goetten said the code should be adhered to and thought a PRD would be a better option. Kelley said there was not alot the Council could do if only a variance was required. Goetten disagreed noting one lot could be eliminated. Gronberg said the width was tight for the lots due to the 50' outlot B. He said there was 620' of width and 200' per lot width originally. Mabusth added that there was no flexibility in placement of private road as access had to be at northeast corner of property. Kelley noted, even with using the land from outlot B of 50', lot 3 was 58' short and lot 4 was 50' short. Gronberg disagreed adding that those figures included the cul -de -sac. Kelley responded that the feet measurement was taken back further and would still not meet the requirement. Kelley questioned making lot 1 wider because of the topography. He said this leads into the concern expressed by Goetten of pushing the lots together. Mabusth noted that this was due to both topography and wetlands. is Kelley asked if there was any economic benefit to the developer in providing Outlot B. He was told there was not. Outlot B was proposed at the request of the City to provide access for the lot to the east. Mabusth noted the direction given by Council with earlier subdivision of Bayview Farms. Mabusth said if the subject property was developed first, then the extension outlot would be recommended. Kelley questioned why this developer would be forced to do that. Gronberg said it was because of a safety concern noting the presence of a crest of a hill. Mabusth said the location was where the County stipulated was safest for both developments. She noted the Council had discussed the future development of the properties, and safety and minimizing any impact were the factors in the earlier decision. Mabusth said in development of this site, the access to the north was seen as the best solution. Jabbour said he saw a problem with granting any variance. He added if restrictions were proposed on the developers, then the City was obligated to give an option. He noted the County's direction for the properties to be served from Co Rd 84. Mabusth clarified that the Council had set this directive during the Olson/Geffre application of Bayview Subdivision in 1995. Mabusth said the Council had wanted to ensure that the property was not landlocked. An Outlot C was served by a private road made up of multiple outlots and owners; but it was the hope that access would come from the property to the west, which is the property now under consideration. 7