My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
06-17-1996 Planning Commission Minutes
Orono
>
Agendas, Minutes & Packets
>
Planning Commission
>
Minutes
>
1990-1999
>
1996
>
06-17-1996 Planning Commission Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/10/2019 2:06:15 PM
Creation date
7/10/2019 2:06:14 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
14
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
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION <br />MEETING HELD ON JUNE 17, 1996 <br />0 ( #2 - #2134 Rob Albrecht - Continued) <br />Smith commented on a driveway reduction. It was her understanding that the <br />Commission was of a consensus that no reduction be done in the driveway area due to <br />safety concerns. Smith said she was not convinced that the information presented is <br />enough to recommend approval. Mitchell responded that the previous survey was <br />inadequate. He asked if the issue was if the driveway reduction deemed it unsafe noting <br />its adequate width. Smith said Staff recommended against it. Gaffron clarified that the <br />driveway was a point of findings in the 1991 review, and the Planning Commission at that <br />time recommended it would be best to leave the driveway as it is. <br />Mitchell remarked that there is no more land available and the applicant can only do so <br />much and requests approval of the small amenity located outside of the critical 0 -75' zone. <br />Smith said it was a matter of adhering to the 1991 Planning Commission review. At that <br />time, the property owner was informed that no more improvements would be allowed. <br />Mitchell noted the number of substandard lots in the neighborhood. He said if the area <br />was looked at in its entirety, there is alot of green space with no stormwater problem, and <br />the application was not a matter of correcting deficiencies. Mitchell cited an example in <br />Medina of where improvements originally denied were later deemed a necessity. Lindquist <br />responded that this property already has a deck. Mitchell noted its different location and <br />the need to recreate. <br />• Peterson said the emotional ties have been established with the deck already g bein in <br />place. Mitchell asked for reconsideration noting the double fees paid by applicant and <br />expressed an apology. <br />Hawn expressed her concern for setting a precedent questioning at what point a Planning <br />Commission recommendation is taken seriously. Mitchell responded that the hardcover is <br />in the 75 -250' zone and a net decrease in hardcover was the result of the application. <br />Peterson inquired about the average lakeshore setback. Gaffron said it is not an issue and <br />does not require a variance. Mitchell noted the house sits back on the property, and the <br />applicant was doing what he could to create a less non - conforming situation. <br />Peterson said he now was considering approval of the application. When asked why by <br />Smith, Peterson said the main issue is to reduce hardcover in the 75 -250' zone, which is <br />being done, conditioning his approval on the driveway safety issue being satisfactory. <br />Smith voiced concern that over time, the driveway would reappear as it now stands. <br />Schroeder asked about reducing the dock down to 4. <br />Hawn asked if the neighbors were concerned with the 6' shoreline dock. Albrecht said his <br />isneighbors were in favor of it noting a letter of approval from the neighbors. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.