Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF T� <br /> ORONO PLANNING CONIlVIISSION MEETING <br /> Monday, September 21,2009 <br /> 6:30 o'clock p.m. <br /> Ebertz noted the gate does come back in and would cover the sidewalk if it were relocated further back. <br /> Ebertz stated the monuments are already constructed and would be moved back slightly out of the right- <br /> of-way but that they would like to locate the monuments and gate in a location that would not interfere <br /> with the sidewalk. <br /> Leskinen stated she would like the applicant to comply with the 40-foot setback given the fact that the <br /> driveway is accessed off of a county road. Leskinen stated the safety of the motorists also needs to be <br /> taken into consideration and that snow could affect the amount of room that is available in front of the <br /> gate to the roadway. Leskinen stated she has a concern that there could be a large truck parked in the <br /> driveway and that a car would need to enter the driveway,which would cause the car to be sticking out <br /> into the roadway. <br /> Ebertz noted one of the photographs does show a large truck parked in the driveway. The gates will <br /> remain open the majority of the time unless his children are out in the front yard. Ebertz stated they do <br /> not have boats that come in and out of their property regularly. Ebertz asked if the amount of room is <br /> such an issue,why other gates in the City are not being required to be moved. <br /> Kempf commented in his view that is not a legitimate argument and that does not justify creating another <br /> situation where a gate is located too close to the roadway. <br /> Kempf stated he would prefer to see a shoulder along the roadway to allow traffic to get out of the way in <br /> the event someone is turning into the driveway,especially given the speed of the vehicles on the roadway. <br /> Installing a gate can create an unsafe situation if there is not sufficient room for the vehicles to be out of <br /> the flow of traffic totally. Kempf noted he does emphasize with the safety for his children but that the <br /> safety of the motorists also needs to be taken into consideration. <br /> Ebertz asked whether the Commission would consider 32 feet versus 40 feet. <br /> Schwingler indicated he understands the applicant's argument but that the Planning Commission is a <br /> recommending body and that the City Council will have the final say in this matter. Schwingler stated the <br /> applicant will need to address the hardcover and review his options for the monuments and gate. <br /> Eberts commented a variance is to allow for some leeway. <br /> Kang stated it appears the Planning Commission is opposed to the setback variance for the monuments <br /> and gate. <br /> Ebertz noted the monuments will need to be removed by November ls` <br /> Kempf commented he does emphasize with Mr.Ebertz' situation but that he has a concern for the <br /> motorists given the lack of a shoulder. <br /> � Kang moved to recommend denial of Application#09-3424 Michael and Donna Ebertz, 1220 <br /> Tonkawa Road. <br /> Schwingler noted there are three parts to this application. <br /> Curtis recommended the Planning Commission follow the recommendation of Staff. <br /> Page <br /> 13 <br />