My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
06-21-1993 Planning PacketC
Orono
>
Agendas, Minutes & Packets
>
Planning Commission
>
Packets
>
1990-1999
>
1993
>
06-21-1993 Planning PacketC
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/26/2023 4:18:00 PM
Creation date
10/26/2023 4:11:36 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.
/
285
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
[ <br />MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br />HELD JUNE 21, 1yS3 <br />KENNETH FIGGE, 2004 SUGARWOOD DR - CONT. <br />Rowlette stated the intent of the covenant was to maintain as mucfi <br />vegetation as possible in the front yards. She noted all other <br />residences in this development have provided a sidewalk to the <br />driveway. She felt that says something about the intent. <br />Sid Rebers, developer of the property, said he never considered <br />adding verbiage regarding sidewalks as he felt sidewalks should be <br />based on Individual preference. He stated, as head of the <br />architectural committee for the development, he would approve the <br />walk and felt this home will be an asset to the development and <br />Orono. <br />Peterson asked if the lighting and horseshoe area are located on <br />rIght-of-way. <br />Mabusth noted it is located in the road right-of-way and that road <br />is a private road over which the City has taken an access and <br />utI I Ity easement. <br />Mitchell noted the curu does have a curb to which the structure <br />would extend to, and it is hoped that maintenance equipment would <br />not go beyond the curb. He understood if the walk were installed <br />as proposed, and later reculred to be moved. It would be at the <br />homeowner’s expense. <br />Nolan asked if there were any legal concerns they must address in <br />setting a precedent as such. <br />Mabusth felt they would be setting a precedent, but did not feel <br />there would be any legal ramifications. <br />Rowlette referred to a letter by MitchelI which states the walk is <br />necessary to preserve the privacy to the property. She questioned <br />that statement. <br />Mitchell stated they hope to screen the utility portion of the <br />property wh'ch is the driveway area, but create an invitation to <br />the front door. <br />Larames stated as for the need to tiI I in the rear protected area, <br />there originally was a fence through the back yard which created <br />a tree line, including a very large ash which has created a dam <br />affect to the rear of the property and a 10" depression. They <br />request permission to fill the depression and to allow drainage to <br />the east. <br />m A <br />1 <br />i
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.