My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
07-08-1996 Council Minutes
Orono
>
City Council
>
1996
>
07-08-1996 Council Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/28/2012 4:16:56 PM
Creation date
12/28/2012 4:16:56 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
20
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 CITY COUNCIL <br />MEETING HELD ON JULY 8, 1996 <br />( #7 - #2136 Greenfield Corporation - Continued) • <br />Hurr asked if the City was saying that this access was to be provided at no cost to the <br />property owner to the east. Mabusth said only Outlot B is being provided as a road bed <br />but is not being developed into a road. <br />Jabbour said access could come in from the eastern access. <br />Kelley suggested that the road outlot not be platted. It was questioned what would <br />happen if the developer of the other property did not wish to pay for the use of the access <br />road. Mabusth said the City would take underlying easements. Kelley said this would <br />then result in the road becoming a public roadway. <br />Gaffron said if lot 1 was pushed further down, the lots could have the appropriate widths. <br />Hun suggested Outlot B be platted. She said it should be under the control of whoever <br />has control of Outlot A. <br />Goetten commented if Outlot B was required, the City would be allowing two lots to be <br />substandard and force developers to share an outlot. Hun responded that the County <br />said the access should be at that location. Callahan noted that the County must give <br />access to the lots. Cook added that 50' is still needed for access to the lot, and it does <br />not change the frontage. Callahan said a lot could be eliminated. Mabusth commented to • <br />plat only a driveway outlot would eliminate width variances. Callahan said the only way <br />to have the development without a variance is to eliminate a lot. <br />Pfennig said he would like to work some mechanism out with the adjoining developer. <br />Jabbour commented that acreage was only one building standard. If primary and <br />secondary septic sites are not found, then there would only be one site. <br />Callahan asked if Outlot B was intended to serve the property to east as well as north <br />from CoRd 84. Mabusth said the road outlot was to serve Outlot C, Bayview Farms. <br />Hun said she would not be as concerned with the variance if safety of access was <br />provided. <br />Kelley asked if a larger blowup of the area could be seen and suggested tabling the <br />application. <br />Kelley moved, Jabbour seconded to table the Application. <br />0 <br />8 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.