Laserfiche WebLink
Metadata
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015 Laserfiche. All rights reserved.
� MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMIVIISSION <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 necessary? <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. Have 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 deternune <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 sta.ted they are loolcing at upgrading 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 wi �e 50- oo wi e easemen�cen ere�over the soutlier y <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,conshuct a sidewalk, and have some <br /> handicapped parldng stalls in that area. Shopek stated there is also the possibility that that lot would <br /> . . � become nonconfornung 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 /> � azea. <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 />