Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING FEBRUARY 20, 1990 <br />Bellows said that the policy also provides for a future <br />transportation plan for the City, rather than designing dead-end <br />roads. <br />Kelley said that a further consideration is that should the <br />City take over snowplowing the road, it is best to have straight, <br />through roads, rather than dead-end roads. <br />Councilmember Callahan said that with the pending McDowell <br />and Parten subdivisions, the City became aware of the fact ttit a <br />transportation plan is needed for that area. He said that zhi s <br />may be the only opportunity to develop a transportation plan. <br />Michael Mueller, an area rea ltor, asked whether developing a <br />transportation plan is what Orono really wants to do? He said <br />that it becomes more difficult to access the collector roads <br />because traffic on those roads increases everytime the City <br />provides a quicker way to get from point A to point B. He said <br />that because of that, people have a tendency to use the interior <br />roads more often and that detracts from property values. <br />#1499 PETER P. CHOW <br />2505-07 RELLY AVENUE <br />SKETCH PLAN REVIEW OF CONDITIONAL 'ISE PERMIT <br />Mr. Brad Johnson was present on behalf of Mr. Chow. <br />Mabusth briefly explained the applicant's proposal for a <br />duplex. <br />Mr. Johnson said that Mr. Chow had purchased the property <br />with the old fire station w: th the intention of building a <br />structure on the property in which he could live. He said that <br />it would not be practical to remodel the existing structure, but <br />would prefer to construct something that would be more <br />characteristic of the neighborhood. Mr. Johnson showed a sketch <br />of the type of duplex proposed. <br />Cohen indicated that he had no objection tr e duplex being <br />located on that property. <br />Brown said that what currently exists cn the property is an <br />eye sore. <br />Mabusth asked the Planning Commission if they would be <br />willing to grant variances to the duplex section of the Code? <br />it was the gvneral consensus of the Planning Commission that <br />they would have no objections to granting variances to the Cade. <br />15 <br />