My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
06-19-1995 Planning Packet
Orono
>
Planning Commission
>
1995
>
06-19-1995 Planning Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/27/2023 3:33:30 PM
Creation date
9/27/2023 3:29:17 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.
/
215
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
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION <br />MEETING HELD ON MAY 15, 1995 <br />(#3 - «2022 Roben Mdamcd - Continued) <br />Sirith inquired ofthe size of the borders. MeUmed said he hw drawn in buffer 2on« <br />along the exterior lot Unes of the property at a 5ff width that b only encroached by septic <br />areas Staff has recommended a 3(y wide buffer along shared interior lot Unes <br />Nolan asked that where driveways extend aloi^ shared lot lines, that 30 wide buffer not <br />include area of drive, but to extend buffer width to maintain 3ff buffer. <br />Peterson personally fWt a variance should be granted to the ordinance, and no diuige be <br />made to the ordinance. Peterson would like the City Attorney s ruling on whether a City <br />can grant itself a variance It was later noted by Gafifron that this had been done with the <br />post office parking lot. <br />Mabusth noted that the Applicant has submitted a letter stath^ he will follow the ptth^ <br />decided upon by the City in re^rds to access roads Mdamed had thou^ that the drive <br />would have to be upgraM to a road. The Planning Commissionm replied that anotho’ <br />alternative for access woidd be decided upon but no upgrade of City drive would be <br />recommended Goetten said the problem is that there are already two homes there, and <br />does the City grant a variance for two more. The Council does not look ftvorriily on <br />other developers doing so; then, why should the City allow themselves to gain from <br />granting a variance. Goetten said the Council was also not in filvor of an internal road. <br />Nolan asked Goetten if the Council preferred two shared access drives off Old Crystal <br />Road. Goetten replied in the negative. <br />Melamed’s partner. Ron Lauer, asked if it was possible for the City to make the road a <br />public road. Mabusth said the roadway is alre^ public. By code, if a third house is <br />built, then the driveway must be upgraded to a road. <br />Applicant asked if the City were to find no legal problems with granting itself a variance, <br />as it does with others, would the City look hard at granting this request. Gc^en said the <br />Council needs to look at the big picture and noted conflicts with several ordinances at this <br />tune. <br />Lindquist voiced his favor of the bike easement along Old Crystal Bay Road. Lindquist <br />also said he understood where the Council was on the issue of the drive; and even though <br />it may be the best solution, the possibility of comity off of Old Crystal Bay Road was <br />there. Mabusth said the Engineer recommended grading of the bike trail along with the <br />developer's grading The Engineer advised that it would be diflScult for the City to do <br />filling in the future. The filling of wetland areas was an issue as the City would be <br />required to find mitigation areas. It is easier for developers to accomplish before <br />residential development. <br />1,11 1 ti " n -rrfca-^iie^«iaitlfs
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.