My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
03-18-2002 Planning Packet
Orono
>
Planning Commission
>
2002
>
03-18-2002 Planning Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/16/2023 3:34:33 PM
Creation date
2/16/2023 3:31:05 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.
/
320
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
MEWTES OF THE <br />ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION <br />Tuesday, February 19,2002 <br />6:30 o’dock p.in. <br />Peterson stated he has nothing additional to add to Staffs report. <br />There were no public comments relating to this application. <br />Hawn inquired what thoughts the Planning Commission had regarding access from Wildhurst. <br />Kluth inquired why two curb cuts rather than one. <br />Peterson stated two curb cuts make access to the property work the best. Peterson noted under <br />Item #4 the City is going to review that item. <br />Hawn inquired whether the Applicant would be okay with this application proceeding forward subject to <br />that condition. <br />Peterson stated that would be okay. <br />Kluth stated it was his understanding a property owner was only allowed one curb cut. <br />Weinberger stated traditionally only one access is granted to a property, with each request being <br />reviewed by the Public Works Director. Weinberger stated it has been the policy of the City in the past <br />to only allow one curb cut, noting it might not be defuied specifically in the code. <br />Smith inquired whether the garage could be located closer to the house to eliminate the need to be <br />within the wetland. <br />Carter indicated they did discuss that with the MCWD, who had also suggested the garage be located <br />closer to the house. Carter stated they originally located the garage 20 feet from the house and have <br />since relocated it six feet closer. Carter stated the problem with coming any closer to the house with the <br />garage is access into the garage. <br />Smith inquired whether the garage doors could be relocated. <br />Carter stated it is a tuck-under garage, which limits which direction the garage can be accessed from. <br />Kluth commented the hardships are very compelling in this case, but noted that there is nothing in the <br />lay of the land that requires a two level garage. Kluth stated he is unsure what the hardship is for a two <br />level garage. <br />Peterson stated he did not want to construct a single level four car garage, which would add to the <br />hardcover. Peterson stated the garage was stacked in an effort to limit the footprint. <br />Rahn inquired whether this design completed prior to the new zoning requirements being put into <br />place. <br />PAGE 10
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.