My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
07-26-1993 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
1993
>
07-26-1993 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/8/2024 1:02:53 PM
Creation date
1/8/2024 1:00:40 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.
/
227
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 MEETING <br />HELD JUNE 21, 1993 <br />i • <br />KENNETH FIGGE, 2004 SUGARWOOO DR - CONT. <br />Row Ie11e stated the intent of the covenant was to maintain as much <br />vegetation as oossible in the front yards. She noted all other <br />residences in this develooment have provided a sidewalk to the <br />driveway. She felt that says something about the intent. <br />Sid Rebers, develooer of the property, said he never considered <br />ado Ing 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, ne would approve the <br />walk and felt this home will be an asset to the develooment and <br />Orono. <br />Peterson asked if the lighting and horseshoe <br />right-of-way. <br />area are located on <br />it is located in the road right-of-way and that road <br />road over which the City has taken an access and <br />Mabusth noted <br />IS a orivate <br />utility easement . <br />Mitchell noted tne curb 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 required 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 Mitchell 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 which is the driveway area, but create an invitation to <br />the front door. <br />Larames stated as for the need to fill 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 cam <br />affect to the rear of the property and a 10" depression. They <br />request permission to fill the deoression and to allow drainage to <br />the east.
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.