My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
02-20-2007 Planning Commission Packet
Orono
>
Planning Commission
>
2007
>
02-20-2007 Planning Commission Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/19/2012 4:09:29 PM
Creation date
6/19/2012 4:09:12 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.
/
346
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 <br /> � � Tuesclay,January 16,2007 _ � <br /> 6:00 o'clock p.m. <br /> (#07-3258 George Stickney, Continued) � � <br /> 3. Vacation of the public roadway is potentially appropriate when the public no longer has current <br /> or future needs for the roadway. While the only oUvious`need for the roadway is to serve the <br /> � owners of tl�ree properties as an access and'utility coi7•idor, does it or could it serve otlier public <br /> . purposes that suggest vacation should not occur? • . <br /> Gaffron noted city sewer exists in a portion of the right-of-way to be vacated. This would become the <br /> lakeshore yard of a new residence at 1450. The City Engineer indicates the two options are to, one,move <br /> , the sewer lines to be under the new road/driveway in Outlot B or;iwo, create easements over the sewer as <br /> ifi exists and risk that City vehicles will have to traverse lawn areas to maintain the system. Additionally, <br /> . fihe sewer comiection for 1480 crosses over 1450. This should be relocated to be witlun Outlot B. <br /> Gaffron reconinlended the Plaiming Commission discuss the following items: . . <br /> 1. The appropriateness of the vacation of road,given the public versus private interests. <br /> 2. Whether the proposed access is sufficient and whether the proposed turnaround is located and <br /> designed in an appropriate manner. <br /> . 3. Is the owner of 1480 okay with the proposal. <br /> Gaffron requested the Planning Cominission provide the develo�er with as much input as possible with <br /> . regards to the proposal. No fornial action Uy the Plaruiing Commission is required. <br /> Rahn inquired whether the sign is located at the end of the public right-of-way. . <br /> Kroeger stated the sign is located at the hammerhead: . � <br /> Gaffron stated the road continues for approximately another 500 to 600 feet. . <br /> Sticlrney addressed the Planning Coninlission regarding his proposal. Sticlrney stated the road was' . <br /> platted in the 1970's and only served one residence at tl�at tinle. Over the years two other residences were � <br /> added and that fihey are considering the creation of a cul-de-sac in place of the existing road,which would <br /> help clean up the issues relating to access. <br /> Sticlaiey stated they are willing to remove a consideraUle amount of hardcover within the 0-75 foot zone <br /> �Uut they would like fio preserve the teiinis court. Sticlaiey stated Mr. Paddock would like to coiistruct a � <br /> new house on the point lot. Sticlrney indicated the pool and pool houses would be removed within the <br /> 0-75 foot zone as well as 7200 feet of roadway. A total of approximately 13,000 square feet.of hardcover <br /> is proposed to Ue removed in the 0-75 foot zone. ' <br /> Rahn stated he is more interested in the puUlic good than the private good that wottld be accomplished <br /> with this proposal. � <br /> PAGE 24 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.