Laserfiche WebLink
f <br /> MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION <br /> MEETING HELD ON MARCH 16, 1998 <br /> • (#2 - #2340 Robert Waade - Continued) <br /> Norum's garage is located less than 10' from the proposed paving of the road. Norum <br /> indicated that the easement road was never meant to be used for the subject property. <br /> Waade suggested building up the property to eliminate retaining walls. Gaffron agreed <br /> that changes are necessary and suggested the City Engineer review the plan. <br /> Gaffron responded to the flooding issue. He reported that it appears all drainage from <br /> applicant's site will go to the pond. It, however, will not solve the neighbor's problem. <br /> Staff felt a comprehensive review of the area's drainage should be conducted from the <br /> marina eastward. Gaffron noted that there are no plans affecting the water supply off the <br /> property and does not know if there are any water lines on the subject property. <br /> Gaffron asked that a condition of Planning Commission approval include the City <br /> Engineer's review of grading. <br /> Dave Dalvey, 3230 Bohns Point Lane, said he has spoken with neighbors and presented a <br /> petition opposing the duplex and variances for the property. Smith read the petition and <br /> the undersigned names. She noted there were unsolved issues surrounding the application, <br /> which has been reviewed twice by the Commission. <br /> • Mabusth asked if the code section regarding the issue relating to the front lot line was <br /> g g g <br /> available. Stoddard indicated he also did not understand the front lot line issue. <br /> In discussion issue #2, Mabusth noted that wetlands and stormwater are all defined as <br /> drainage easements and the referenced example is for a rural property. She supported <br /> allowing the credit for stormwater ponding. Commissioners agreed with Mabusth. <br /> Stoddard felt the road should be private. Commissioners agreed. Gaffron explained that <br /> the code standard for a private road width serving 3-7 units is 24'wide. If the road is <br /> public, it would need to be wider. <br /> Mabusth asked if a road name would be required. Gaffron said this would normally occur <br /> but with the existing access, the homeowners can retain the North Shore Drive addresses <br /> but may desire a sign board to direct people to their properties. <br /> Stoddard said he supported a 24' private road but would like the City Engineer to review <br /> the preliminary grading plans prior to review by Council. <br /> Gaffron clarified the reasoning for the width and length variances necessary for Outlots A <br /> and B. He indicated that two outlots are necessary for access and for the road. The City <br /> will require easements over the outlots for underlying utilities and to grant easements to <br /> • the other property owners to allow them to continue using the access. <br /> 3 <br />