My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
09-15-1997 Planning Commission Minutes
Orono
>
Agendas, Minutes & Packets
>
Planning Commission
>
Minutes
>
1990-1999
>
1997
>
09-15-1997 Planning Commission Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/10/2019 2:36:14 PM
Creation date
7/10/2019 2:36:12 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
41
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
• ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br />MINUTES FOR SEPTEMBER 15,1997 <br />( #5 - #2279 and #2280 Marc and Tracy Whitehead - Continued) <br />Stankovsky noted the driveway enters Lyman Avenue and would increase the traffic to Smith <br />Avenue. He asked when it would be decided whether it would need widening. He is concerned that <br />guidance be given by the Commission for when the roadway needs to be widened as the property <br />will most likely be in the ownership of others at that future time. Smith questioned whether the <br />money for the future upgrade could be escrowed. Gaffron said this method has not been used in <br />similar situations in the past. He questioned what would be a good trigger for when the upgrade is <br />required. <br />Schroeder indicated that the application has been reviewed on several occasions by the Commission <br />and the applicant has complied with the requests made by the Commission. He noted the number <br />of lots was reduced to three. He asked if the width variance for Lot 3 was a function of the lot <br />geography. Gaffron said it was, and was also related to the septic site. He indicated the intent of <br />the back lot requirements needs to be reviewed. An administrative variance to the septic setback for <br />the wetlands is being granted as this is not a zoning code matter. <br />Schroeder said his view is that the applicant should be responsible for a partial amount of the <br />• upgrade. Smith agreed. Lindquist also indicated there is some responsibility on the part of the <br />applicant. <br />Stoddard asked that Staff review the maintenance needs of the road prior to application going before <br />the Council. <br />Hawn said she would like the driveway to be relocated onto the property within Lot 1 instead of to <br />the east by use of an easement. Winston reported on the number of trees impacted. He did not feel <br />this suggestion was good for the neighborhood. Gregory noted the driveway easement is shown on <br />the plat. <br />Lindquist asked Hawn her reasoning behind the suggestion. Hawn said she felt it would be easier <br />to deal with the driveway on the property instead of through an easement when the road is <br />straightened out. She is concerned with the curve of the road. <br />Gaffron concurred that the road does not meet design standards but noted the close proximity to the <br />septic site for Lot 2. <br />Lindquist said he was satisfied with the use of a driveway easement. <br />5 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.