My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
01-27-2003 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
2003
>
01-27-2003 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2023 1:59:13 PM
Creation date
1/26/2023 1:41:37 PM
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.
/
392
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).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
F <br />5 <br />MINUTES OF THE <br />ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETD^G <br />Monday, November 18,2002 <br />6:30 o’clock p.ni. <br />fact that the City Engineer ’s comments had not yet been suitably addressed and suggested <br />that the Planning Commission table the application. Gaffron laid out a series of seven <br />recommendations for the Planning Commission to consider: <br />1) Gaf&on suggested the Planning Commission table the application to allow staff and City <br />Engineer time to consider whether the plan is appropriate, and to allow staff, applicant and <br />the applicant’s consultant time to confer. <br />2) Commission should provide direction as to whether the grades on the west lakeshore <br />yard should be restored <br />3) Commission should provide direction as to whether the deck on the lakeside of the <br />house might be approved if a formal variance request was made <br />4) Gaffron maintained that any forthcoming approvals should be conditioned on timely <br />removal of the illegal shed in the eastern 0-75’ zone, and removal of the gravel parking <br />area in the same zone, returning both to grass. The applicant had been ordered to remove <br />the shed back in July but to date has failed to comply. GafB*on indicated that staffs <br />perspective would be that the variances for these improvements, if applied for, should not <br />be granted as there is likely no hardship to support such variances. <br />5) Applicant should be advised to work with adjacent property owners in reaching a <br />suitable cdnclusion in terms of ownership claims regarding the “accretions” cast of tK^. <br />road <br />6) The survey should be revised to verify the encroachment of the concrete stairway into <br />the City right-of-way. Gafhon questioned whether angling the stairway toward the <br />driveway might avoid the encroachment <br />Because it is likely the necessary work would not take place until spring, the applicant <br />PAGE 24 of 28 <br />•*i n -TrfTA .
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.