My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
09-17-2018 Planning Commission Packet
Orono
>
Agendas, Minutes & Packets
>
Planning Commission
>
Packets
>
2010-2019
>
2018
>
09-17-2018 Planning Commission Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/15/2020 11:02:21 AM
Creation date
1/15/2020 11:01:09 AM
Metadata
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
282
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 <br />ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br />Monday, August 20, 2018 <br />6:30 o'clock p.m. <br />consideration. Currently the area is somewhat of an eyesore for the whole neighborhood and in her view <br />the neighbors' property values are being impacted by that. <br />There were no further public comments. <br />Barnhart noted an e-mail was received this afternoon regarding the property, which has been provided to <br />the Planning Commission. <br />Thiesse asked about access. <br />Barnhart stated access can likely be resolved by review of the easement. <br />Gustafson stated there is an easement that provides access across the neighboring property, which is Lot <br />20, and that he can provide additional information on that. <br />Thiesse asked if he is amenable to moving the house down a couple of lots with a road and cul-de-sac for <br />emergency vehicles. <br />Gustafson stated they will take all the feedback they receive tonight and consider it. <br />Erickson commented it would be nice to see a rough plan for the rest of the area to give the Planning <br />Commission a better idea of what is being contemplated. <br />Thiesse stated the applicant is asking for approval for a portion of the property and that it is likely they <br />will use it as a practical difficulty. <br />Erickson agreed that there is a question about what happens after these variances are granted. <br />Gustafson stated a turnaround or a cul-de-sac for this area probably makes sense, but that a cul-de-sac or <br />turnaround for the entire neighborhood at the end of the road is probably not something the property <br />owners are interested in doing. <br />Thiesse indicated he has difficulty creating a substandard lot but that there is no way to make it a <br />conforming lot in all respects. Thiesse noted the City normally does not allow a front lot/back lot. <br />Gustafson asked whether seeing a proposal that shows development of the entire peninsula would be <br />easier for the Planning Commission. <br />Thiesse commented that would be easier for him and that it appears this site needs the most work. <br />Thiesse stated he would rather see the whole thing and that he has the most difficulty with this lot. <br />Ressler suggested the applicant counter this plan with something to improve the situation and that they <br />might not necessarily be helping the situation by keeping the road at 12 feet wide. Ressler stated they <br />should look at balancing some of the difficulties the current residents encounter with the road by perhaps <br />adding a turnaround on the property. <br />Gustafson asked whether a turnaround on Lot 21 to allow better neighborhood and emergency vehicle <br />access and turnaround would be beneficial. <br />Page 5 of 12 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.