My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
06-19-1995 Planning Commission Minutes
Orono
>
Agendas, Minutes & Packets
>
Planning Commission
>
Minutes
>
1990-1999
>
1995
>
06-19-1995 Planning Commission Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/10/2019 1:50:39 PM
Creation date
7/10/2019 1:50:39 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
16
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).
View images
View plain text
u <br />MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION <br />MEETING HELD ON TUNE 19, 1995 <br />( #2 - #2029 William Smith - Continued) <br />Beth Casody, owner of Lot 2, said expanding the width of the drive defeats the purpose of <br />maintaining the aesthetics of the area. An expansion would encroach on the trees. The <br />area is well populated by wildlife. Casody said she would be happy to maintain the circle <br />for emergency vehicles. Lindquist said the initial wider road up to the first driveway <br />would be preferred for safety reasons. <br />Gordon Buhrer, owner of property to the west, said he appreciates the narrowness of the <br />existing road. If the road had to be widened, Buhrer felt it would encourage more traffic; <br />and did not see any reason to widen it if the neighbors each preferred to keep it narrow. <br />Commission members did not believe the the amount of upgrade being discussed would <br />affect either the privacy or the aesthetics. Maintenance would be required, however. <br />In discussing how wide the driveway should be, Mabusth noted there are no standards in <br />the code for driveways. Schroeder commented, if we now were to have three homes on <br />the driveway, it would technically be a road, so the Commission is able to discuss the <br />width. <br />Rowlette commented on the inability to pass on the road. Nolan said the 4" of gravel for <br />the driveway is insufficient. Smith said there was also a 6" underlavment. Casody <br />reported on a moving van's ability to manuever and make a complete circle on the <br />turnaround in Lot 2. Casody also noted that meeting another car on the drive only <br />required a 15' backing up movement of a vehicle. <br />Smith cautioned about setting a precedent, citing the Stronghold property being paved <br />with a cul -de -sac. Mabusth said the paving was completed after the fact and noted the <br />Council had dealt with the same issues on the Melamed subdivision. <br />Rowlette moved, Lindquist seconded, to approve Application 92029 for variances to the <br />subdivision regulations with the stipulation that additional property be available on the first <br />lot to remain at 2 acres to allow widening and upgrading of the driveway to the location of <br />the new curb cut off the driveway. The 10' existing driveway will be widened to at least <br />18' with gravel. The remainder of the driveway acccessing the other two lots will be <br />widened to a 12' width. An outlot will be designated through Lot 2. The applicant asked <br />what would happen if the wetland rules were relaxed in the future. Mabusth said the <br />proposals all would be subject to current code. Ayes 7, Nays 0. <br />4 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.