Laserfiche WebLink
. � <br /> , <br /> _ MINUTES OF THE <br /> ' � ORONO PLANIVING COMMISSION � <br /> � . . Tuesday,February 20,2007 ' <br /> � � - 6:00 o'clock p.m. . <br /> (#07-3250 Philip Carlson,Continued) <br /> 1. � Is the landscaping plan adequate to provide screening where necessary7 � <br /> � 2. Is the Planning Commission satisfied with the site layout and building design/materials? <br /> 3. Are there any aspects of the prior approvals (Documented in Resolutions 5296 and 5387)that <br />� . . the Planning Commission believes should be revised? <br /> 4. -biave engineering concerns been adequately addressed? <br /> 5. Are there any other issues with this proposal? � � <br /> The Planning Commission should address the various issues raised in this memo and determine <br /> whether there are any other issues that need further consideration. If all Planning Commission <br /> concerns are satisfied,then a recommendation for approval would be appropriate. Approval <br /> conditions similar to those found in Resolution Nos. 5296 and 5387 will become part of the approval. <br /> Rahn inquired whether the applicants have had time to address the concerns of the City Engineer. <br /> Shopek stated they are looking at upb ading the boulder walls but they would be willing to go back to <br /> the keystone walls if the boulder walls are not approved. � <br /> Rahn commented the boulder walls tend to look more natural but may take up more room. <br /> Carlson indicated there is enough room on the site to construct a boulder wall and that they would <br /> . prefer to construct the boulder walls rather than the keystone walls. <br /> Shopek stated they would have an issue with the 50-foot wide easement centered over the southerly <br /> connecting driveway since it would come within 10 feet of one of the units and would eliminate the <br /> � ability to erect a monument sign within the easement,construct a sidewalk,and have some <br /> handicapped parking stalls in that area. Shopek stated there is also the possibility that that lot would <br /> become nonconforming with a 50-foot easement. . <br /> Rahn inquired whether the 50-foot easement is being required in the event there is expansion in this <br /> area. <br /> Gaffron stated he is not necessarily in agreement with the City Engineer that there should be 50 feet <br /> and that since this is not a platted corridor, it could perhaps be constructed at a width less than 50 feet. <br /> � Rahn inquired whether an easement has been granted for the retaining wall by the welding shop <br /> property. <br /> Carlson stated they had received a permanent easement from the neighbors in the previous application <br /> and that they do not anticipate any issues with obtaining the new easement. <br /> � PAGE 4 <br />