My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
11/19/2007 Planning Commission Minutes
Orono
>
Planning Commission
>
2007
>
11/19/2007 Planning Commission Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/19/2012 2:34:53 PM
Creation date
6/19/2012 2:34:52 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
23
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 <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br /> Monday,November 19,2007 <br /> 6:00 o'clock p.m. <br /> (#07-3332 PRC Development Company, Continued) <br /> Turner stated the City's Code speci�es there has to be a right-of-way. <br /> Kempf stated he would be fine with adjusting the setbacks. <br /> Turner stated the fire marshal has indicated that 24 feet would be satisfactory if parking was restricted <br /> to one side of the roadway. Turner noted the applicant has suggested 22 feet. <br /> Seeland stated she would like the opportunity to speak with the fire marshal on the width of the <br /> roadway. Seeland stated the width of the roadway in front of her house is 18 feet and that in her view <br /> 22 feet on a private road would be more than adequate. <br /> Kroeger pointed out that the road tends to become narrower with each snowfall,especially if the road <br /> is curvy. <br /> Seeland pointed out the location of two fire hydrants. <br /> Turner stated the fire hydrants would need to be located in the spots designated by the fire marshal. <br /> Kempf commented he would like to review the final plan since the City Engineer has not reviewed the <br /> plans. <br /> Turner noted the City Engineer has reviewed the plans and has provided some extensive comments <br /> regarding the project. Turner stated the difference between preliminary and final plat approval would <br /> be the filling in of the details,like the type and number of trees to be planted, and perhaps some <br /> corrections to the utility plan. Turner stated the Planning Commission would be making a <br /> recommendation on the preliminary PRD plan and that they could indicate whether they would like to <br /> review the final PRD. <br /> Kempf commented he would like to see the final PRD plan and questioned whether it would delay the <br /> proj ect if the applicant had to come back before the Planning Commission. <br /> Turner stated it is unlikely a second review by the Planning Commission would delay the application <br /> since there would be a number of small details that would need to be resolved prior to the application <br /> proceeding to the City Council. <br /> Kroeger inquired whether there is a secondary emergency access to the development. <br /> Turner stated the fire marshal has indicated it is not necessary. <br /> Seeland noted they have shortened the cul-de-sac. - <br /> Kroeger asked whether there would be an actual gate at the entrance to the subdivision. <br /> Seeland stated it is a monument and it would be designed to allow the homeowners to add a gate if <br /> they so choose. <br /> PAGE 19 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.