My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
10/21/2013 Planning Commission Minutes
Orono
>
Planning Commission
>
2013
>
10/21/2013 Planning Commission Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/20/2018 3:42:07 PM
Creation date
12/20/2018 3:42:01 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
42
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 <br /> ORONO CITY PLANNING COMMISSION <br /> Monday,October 21,2013 <br /> 6:30 o'clock p.m. <br /> Leskinen asked when he is talking about easements for people to walk back there, if he is speaking of the <br /> homeowners and not the public. <br /> Stickney indicated the homeowners and neighbors would likely be allowed in that area but that it would <br /> need to be looked at as to who can use the property. <br /> Leskinen stated if the area is under private ownership,there could be some liability issues associated with <br /> allowing the public in that area. <br /> Lemke asked if he would be developing the property himself. <br /> Stickney indicated he is merely selling the property and that he was asked by the developer to help guide <br /> the development. <br /> Landgraver asked if the applicant would be amenable to pushing some of the houses back. <br /> Stickney indicated it would be and that they have attempted to listen to the concerns expressed by the <br /> neighbors. <br /> Chair Leskinen opened the public hearing at 7:58 p.m. <br /> John Quam, 3760 Northern Avenue, indicated he is very much opposed to the layout of the development <br /> especially as it relates to Lot 1. Quam illustrated how the proposed driveway would be located next to his <br /> bedroom and that it would also create runoff issues. Quam noted his property is lower than the adjoining <br /> property with the natural drainage going towards his house. Quam indicated there will also be issues with <br /> snow piling and runoff in the springtime. Quam stated he currently has problems with the current grading <br /> and runoff and that he would like to see the driveway moved to the east side of the lot to minimize the <br /> disruption to his family with the lights and noise. <br /> Chair Leskinen closed the public hearing at 8:00 p.m. <br /> Leskinen indicated she prefers the PRD versus the RPUD and Option 2 with the outlot scenario. <br /> Leskinen stated she has a concern with access to the back of the property if they were single lots going all <br /> the way back. Leskinen noted neighbors do not always get along. <br /> Thiesse indicated he has a problem with associations and that he would prefer ownership of that area be <br /> held by the individual property owners. <br /> Landgraver stated the outlot is a solution that is not really solving anything. <br /> McGrann stated the purchase agreement will spell out the fact that Lot 3 will have a creek in the back <br /> portion of their property and that easements will be required to gain access to that area. <br /> Landgraver stated he envisioned a path going all the way around the wetland. <br /> Thiesse stated he would like to see the house on Lot 1 moved forward to accommodate the house to the <br /> west of the development. <br /> Page 16 of 42 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.