My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
08-18-2003 Planning Packet
Orono
>
Planning Commission
>
2003
>
08-18-2003 Planning Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/9/2023 1:41:31 PM
Creation date
2/9/2023 1:38:56 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.
/
331
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
L. <br />MINUTES OF THE <br />ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br />Monday, July 21.2003 <br />6:00 o’clock p.m. <br />(«18 MI3-2926 WALTER RINGER JR^ Coaliaved) <br />Gronbcrg pointed out that it could be rather onerous for the owners to pay connection fees now <br />for future development. <br />Gaffron agreed, staling that the connection fees could be delayed to a future time frame. He <br />noted that if the parcel was subdivided into 2 lots, once the road was ready, the rest of the <br />developments could be ‘phased in’ similar to a subilivision or deselopment. Although a unique <br />situation, Gaffron praised the City and applicant for trying to the right thing now by planning for <br />the future and not missing out on any opportunities it might hold. <br />Hawn questioned the idea that the park dedication come directly out of the lakcshorc. <br />acknowledging that this would be a bit egregious to expect a piece of the most xaluable ponion <br />of the property. <br />While Gaffron understood her position, he noted that it was necessary to at least broach the <br />subject. <br />Noting that the sketch plan was well laid out. Chair Smith complimented the applicant and <br />Gronbcrg for an attractive proposal. <br />With regard to the future roadway, Gronbcrg stated that they would suggest a bigger loop that <br />comes back upon itself in order to preserx e the treed area on the property. He questioned how <br />the backlot ordinance might impact their plans. <br />Ringer stated that the title states that if the lot casement from Kingsley/Murphy is unavailable, <br />this property would be given an easement directly parallel to the railroad tracks on the property. <br />Ringer asked the Commission if they felt the proposal was feasible for them, the Ringers, to <br />pursue before they commit to any further great e.xpense to file an application. <br />Chair Snhth slated that ihe sketch plan seemed more than feasible. <br />Gaffron suggested they design a 4-5 lot plat, starling with the initial 2 properties now as the <br />preliminary plat and outlolting the second phase of 3-5 properties. As the City has done oullois <br />for developers w i;h additional phases of completion, Gaffron believed this to be and acceptable <br />solution. He indicated that the City would need to obtain some kind of commitment from Ihe <br />Murphy's as to where the proposed roadway would run. <br />Chair Smith thanked Ringer arul Gronbcrg for tlicir presentation and indicated that the <br />Commission had no further issues. <br />PLANNING COMMISSION CO.MMENTS <br />PAGE 36 of 37 <br />f <br />■
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.