My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
04/18/2005 Planning Commission Minutes
Orono
>
Agendas, Minutes & Packets
>
Planning Commission
>
Minutes
>
2000-2009
>
2005
>
04/18/2005 Planning Commission Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/9/2012 9:24:21 AM
Creation date
3/9/2012 9:24:19 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
32
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
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br /> Monday,April 18,2005 <br /> 6:00 o'clock p.m. <br /> (#05-3097 Hashem Abukhadra, Continued) <br /> 1. The Rural Oasis study the City is currently undergoing would require that this property Master <br /> Plan as it exceeds the five-acre threshold. The Planning Commission should consider whether the <br /> applicant will be required to Master Plan in accordance with the standards the City's consultant <br /> has outlined even though the formal Comprehensive Plan Amendment has not been adopted. <br /> 2. Should the stormwater potentially created by all 21 dry acres be required to be treated,rather than <br /> the current plan that only treats eight acres. <br /> 3. Should the ditch wetlands noted in Lot 5 be deducted for the lot area based on the wetland <br /> ordinance currently awaiting adoption and what if that eliminates Lot 5? <br /> 4. Should setback variances be granted in order to retain the existing guesthouse? Should the <br /> existing access from Fox Street to the guesthouse be eliminated upon final plat approval? <br /> 5. Should the existing access at the western corner of the site crossing Lot 1 be eliminated up to the <br /> proposed outlot even if Lot 1 is not developed? <br /> 6. Is the Planning Commission comfortable reviewing Lot 6 as a back-lot requiring 150% of the <br /> RR-1B setback standards? <br /> 7. Is the Planning Commission concerned about the retaining wall heights necessary for the <br /> proposed road? Should these walls be located within the right-of-way, on the property line, or <br /> within Lots 1 and 4? <br /> 8. Should a 10-foot trail easement be dedicated? <br /> Staff recommends this application be tabled to allow for an engineering and septic review. <br /> Gronberg stated on Lot 5 the east lot line was originally jogged due to the wetlands and that based on <br /> discussions with Gaffron, it was determined that the ditch wetlands could be included. Gronberg stated <br /> Lot 6 is a back lot and that there is a considerable amount of frontage on Fox Street,which would make <br /> Lot 6 a good lot. <br /> Rahn inquired if the existing home is located on Lot 6. <br /> Gronberg stated it is. <br /> Rahn inquired what variances would be required with the current proposal. <br /> Gundlach stated the guesthouse would require a variance even if Lot 6 is called a back lot. <br /> Abukhadra stated the guesthouse was constructed approximately 60 to 70 years ago and has recently been <br /> renovated. <br /> PAGE 11 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.