My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
07-17-1995 Planning Packet
Orono
>
Planning Commission
>
1995
>
07-17-1995 Planning Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/27/2023 3:43:59 PM
Creation date
9/27/2023 3:40:19 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.
/
217
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 JUNE 19, 1995 <br />(#2 - #2029 William Smith - Continued) <br />Beth Casody, owner of Lot 2, said expanding the width of the drive defeats the purpose c <br />maintaining the aesthetics of the area. An expansion would encroach on the trees Tw <br />area is well populated by wildlife Casody said she would be happy to maintain the circle <br />for emergency 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^ <br />existing road. If the road had to be widened, Buhrer felt it would encourage more traffic; <br />and did not see any reason to widen it if the neighbors each preferred to keep it narro^ <br />Commission members did not believe the the amount of upgrade being discussed would <br />affect either the privacy or the aesthetics Maintenance would be required, however. <br />In discussing how wide the driveway should be, Mabusth noted there are no standards in <br />the code for dnveways 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 discu» the <br />width. <br />Rowlettc 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 />r^uired a 15* b&cking up movcnicnt of & 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 aft^ the 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 10’ existing driveway wiU 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 through Lot 2. The applicant asked <br />what would happen if the wetland rules were relaxed in the future. Mabusth said the <br />proposals all would be subiect to current code. Ayes 7, Nays 0. <br />k.-
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.