My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
06-19-1995 Planning Packet
Orono
>
Agendas, Minutes & Packets
>
Planning Commission
>
Packets
>
1990-1999
>
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).
View images
View plain text
r MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION <br />MEETING HELD ON JUNE 19, 1995 <br />(#2 « #2029 William Smith - Continued) <br />Beth CaMxIy, owner of Lot 2, said expanding the width of the drive defeats the purpose of <br />maintaining the aesthetics of the area An expansion would encroach on the trees. The <br />area is well populated by wildlife Casody said she would be happy to maintain the circle <br />for emergenc> vehicles Lindquist said the initial wider road up to the first driveway <br />would be preferred for safety reasons. <br />Gordon Buhrer, owner of property to the west, said he appreciates the narrowness of the <br />existing road If the road had to be widened, Buhrer fdt it would encourage more traffic; <br />and did not see any reason to widen it if the neighbors each preferred to keep it narrow. <br />Commission members did not believ e the the amount of upgrade being discussed would <br />affect either the privacy or the aesthetics Maintenance would be required, however. <br />'n discussing how wide the driveway should be, Mabusth noted there are no standards in <br />the code for driv eways. Schroeder commented, if we now were to have three homes on <br />the driveway, it would technically be a road, so the Commission is able to discuss the <br />width. <br />Rowlette commented on the inability to pass on the road Nolan said the 4" of gravel for <br />the driveway is insufficient. Smith said there was also a 6" underlavment Casodv <br />reported on a moving van's ability to manuever and make a complete circle on the <br />turnaround in Lot 2. Casody also noted that meeting another car on the drive only <br />required a 15' backing up movement of a vehicle <br />Smith cautioned about setting a precedent, citing the Stronghold property being paved <br />with a cul-de-sac. Mabusth said the paving was completed after ffie fact and noted the <br />Council had dealt with the same issues on the Melamed subdivision. <br />Rowlette moved, Lindquist seconded, to approve Application #2029 for variances to the <br />subdivision regulations with the stipulation that additional property be available on the first <br />lot to remain at 2 acres to allow widening and upgrading of the driveway to the location of <br />the new curb cut off the driveway. The 1 O' existing driveway will be widened to at least <br />18' with gravel. The remainder of the driveway acccessing the other two lots will be <br />widened to a 12’ width. An outlot will be designated throu^ Lot 2. The applicant asked <br />what would happen if the wetland rules were relaxed in the future. Mabusth said the <br />proposals ail would be subject to current code. Ayes 7, Nays 0. <br />iaatiiiik rifti
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.