01/22/2008 Planning Commission Minutes

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday,January 22,2008 6:00 o'clock p.m. (Report of Planning Commission,Continued) to issues with the county requesting some additional right-of-way along Sixth Avenue and Homestead Trail. Kempf reported on the January 14"'meeting,noting that the City's five year plan for street replacemenbimprovements was approved. Kempf asked whether the City's web site contains information on when each street would be improved. City Council Member McMillan indicated there is a spread sheet available detailing the anticipated costs of the construction but to her knowledge there is not a time table on the web site of when each road would be worked on. McMillan noted the subbases for Casco Point Road and Orono Orchard Road would need to be totally redone,which accounts for a substantial portion of the expenses. Kempf noted the Maxfield application,the Riley application, and MacNaughton applications were on the consent agenda for the January 14°i meeting. Kempf noted the Stonegate development was approved at the January 14`�'meeting,with the City Attorney determining that the City does not need to provide for the additional right-of-way if the Council does not feel that the development will generate higher traffic levels that would require the widening of the roadway. It was the feeling of the City Council that the additional six houses would not require the widening of the roadway at some point in the future. 8. OTHER ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION Kroeger commented that the amount of environmental work that has been completed along Leaf Street has really enhanced the area. . Kempf stated on the City Council agenda it explains what the Consent Agenda is and that the public has to speak up at that time on the applications. Kempf requested that same language be placed on the Planning Commission agenda. The Planning Commission discussed the need to give clearer direction to the applicants on all issues raised by Staff. McMillan stated it is important that septic sites are identified and that it is appropriate for the Planning Commission to stress the need for septic sites to be compliant and the need to protect both the primary and the alternate septic sites. McMillan commented there are some applicants who are not that familiar with septic systems and that the Planning Commission should stress those types of issues. Kempf commented that perhaps that application should not have been brought before the Planning Commission. Curtis stated that each application has to be heard within a certain time period and that Staff likes to get the input of the Planning Commission on the applications. Curtis noted if an applicant does not have an acceptable septic site,they will not be issued a building pernut. The Planning Commission also has the option in their motion to require that certain items are completed to the satisfaction of Staff or have Staff bring the application back before the Planning Commission. PAGE 17