My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
10-16-1995 Planning Packet
Orono
>
Planning Commission
>
1995
>
10-16-1995 Planning Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/4/2023 2:42:56 PM
Creation date
10/4/2023 2:29:51 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.
/
470
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 SEPTEMBER 18, 1995 <br />(U2 - H2065 Marfieid/Hiil/Toles - Continued) <br />Schroeder moved. Smith seconded, to table Application ^2065 until the Fire Department <br />could give their recommendation regarding the proposal. Toies noted that t ing wo <br />upset liis plans for rebuilding on Itis property this tail. <br />Gaffi-on asked the Commission about the issue with creating a backlot by having an outlet <br />rcsultinit in the Martield propen>' being more substandard for ^ . <br />requested whether there is also a problem v»ith the outlet to be o'^n y ot i <br />and Hill. Schroeder commented that he had no problem with it. <br />A letter from neichbors. the Levy ’s, favored approving the appbeadon providmg the new <br />driveway not be closer than 15’ from the lot line and the utility easements to the^property <br />remain in effea. The neiahbors to the west, the Lukes, also had no obiwuon. They <br />asked that the City stipulate that no additional buildings be aUowed on the site. <br />Hawn moved. Schroeder seconded, to amend the tabling motion to ^ approval motion for <br />Application #2065 subjert to the approval of the Fire Department. Easements are to <br />dealt with, and the driveway must be at least 15’ from the neighbonng property. <br />Gaflfron suegested it may be inappropriate to place the fire depanment in <br />approve or disapprove this request without fiirthcr Commission input, (^on ask^ the <br />Commissioners to address the issues under item #1 m the Staff memo rel^g to <br />variances requested for replatting and rededication of easements, the wetlands d^nwtion <br />and dedicaSn on the property, and whether special findings are adequate to define this as <br />a unique request as compared to other three-lot subdivisions, or be prepared to grant <br />approval to other neighborhoods making similar requests. <br />Rowlene said she did feel there are specific findings in regards to this appUcation notmg <br />the existing substandard access to the Toies property. There would be better access from <br />CoRd 51 for emergency vehicles under the proposal. <br />Hawn noted the additional finding that removal of the cul-de-sac to ^low the Hills to <br />cross to their lakeshore parcel without crossmg the road would be a benefit. <br />Smith asked Gafiron if he envisioned requests from many other residents of 3-party cul- <br />de-sacs to ask for removal is this opening the door for similar requests. Gaffron s^d it <br />could be opening a -Uttle door", and that is the reason good findings are important here. <br />P«erson said he was concerned that the Commission was moving this appU^tion forw^d <br />to the Council in a messy form and requested that it be tabled. Lmdqmst <br />Les mav come back to haunt the Commission. Schoeder agreed this could happen »d <br />not only on the cuWe-sac issue, that there are many issues involved in addmon to the fire <br />safety issue.
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.