My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
09-19-1994 Planning Packet
Orono
>
Planning Commission
>
1994
>
09-19-1994 Planning Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/19/2023 3:28:31 PM
Creation date
10/19/2023 3:19:52 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.
/
350
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
Zoning File #1968 <br />September 15, 1994 <br />Pai!e 3 <br />The DNR has been notified of the application and as of this writing has not submitted <br />comments. <br />Potential for Alternate .Access Locations <br />Staff has discussed with a number of potential buyers of this property the possibility of <br />gaining access from adjacent properties rather than developing a new driveway on the steep <br />roadside slope. Perhaps the most likely alternative would be a shared driveway with property <br />to the west. However, staff is unaware whether the Bangert’s have approached neighln^ring <br />property owners regarding tte possibility of such an access easement, and are led to believe the <br />Banuerts would like to avoid a shared driveway. <br />Issues for Discussion <br />Absent the access is.sue, is there sufficient hardship for granting the lot area and width <br />variances? If variances were not granted, how would this property be used.^ <br />Should variances be granted for hardcover, tree removal and extensive grading in the 0- <br />75’ setback zone? <br />From a "visual impact" standpoint, if the driveway is constructed, what specific plantings <br />will be added to soften the impact of the retaining walls and remaining steep slopes? <br />The City Engineer ’s letter clearly shows great concern about the safety of this driveway <br />and its impact on neichboriiig propenies and the road, as well as slope stability concerns. <br />Please review his comments. If the driveway proposal is approved, a revised plan <br />addressing all the Engineer ’s concerns should be submitted by applicant and approved <br />by the City Engineer before this is presented to the City Council. <br />If Planning Commission concludes that the negative impacts of this proposed driveway <br />outweieh the justifications given for granting the necessary vanances. what other options <br />does the property owner have? Is Planning Commission interested in wit^olding <br />approval until property owner or applicant have explored all other options? Is Planning <br />Commission convinced that all other possibilities have been exhauste . <br />Please review the applicant’s letter of request caretully <br />Option.s for Action <br />1.Recommend approval subject to the applican, providing a revised plan addressing the <br />issues of concent noted in City Engineer Glenn Cook s letter of September 14, 199 .
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.