My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
09-19-2011 Planning Commission Packet
Orono
>
Agendas, Minutes & Packets
>
Planning Commission
>
Packets
>
2010-2019
>
2011
>
09-19-2011 Planning Commission Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/15/2012 4:34:27 PM
Creation date
8/15/2012 4:34:16 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
198
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).
View images
View plain text
� MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br /> Monday,August 15,2011 <br /> � 6:30 o'clock p.m. <br /> Thiesse encouraged the applicants review the proposed driveway to ensure there is adequate room for <br /> them to turn around. � <br /> Wingerd indicated they will do that and that they have had to make numerous maneuvers in their <br /> driveway already due to the rocks. Wingerd indicated he did not lrnow exactly what Mr:�Gronberg meant <br /> and that Mr.Thiesse's point is well taken regarding the turnaround. <br /> Schoenzeit stated the proposal should meet adequate engineering standards to accomplish what they are <br /> requesting. <br /> Wingerd indicated he will communicate that to Mr. Gronberg. <br /> Thiesse stated regardi.ng the hazdcover removal,if the original easement is part of a driveway easement, <br /> he is not sure how the Planning Commission can request that pavement be removed. If the 12-foot <br /> easement is the only portion allowed for the driveway,then Mr.Puzak needs to understand that if it is not <br /> an easement and it is located on the Wingerd property,they have the right to remove it. <br /> Curtis stated it is her understandi.ng that what is being proposed to be removed is on the applicants' <br /> property. � <br /> Gaffron stated Staff will need to ask the City Attomey to define whether or not the e�cisting easement <br /> prescribes exactly how much hard surface or driving surface within that easement is allowed Mr.Puzak. <br /> If there is no definition, somebody will need to decide whether or not the hardcover that is excess in the <br /> minds of various entities can be removed or not. <br /> Landgraver requested that the hardcover that is proposed to be removed be highlighted on the overhead. <br /> Curtis stated there is currently hardcover in front of the garage. Curtis illustrated on the overhead the <br /> areas of existing hardcover and the areas the applicant is proposing to remove. <br /> Schoenzeit commented other than the fact that the Planning Commission does not like hardcover,removal <br /> of the excess hardcover seems like it would be a source of ignition and would escalate the issue between <br /> the parties. Schoenzeit stated he is less inclined to require removal of the hardcover until some higher <br /> authority determines e�:actly what should be removed. <br /> Curtis suggested the applicant only remove the hardcover up to the pink line. <br /> Thiesse stated that seems reasonable but that the hardcover should not be removed from the easement. <br /> Schoenzeit stated in order to move this application forward and not escalate the situation,the Planning <br /> Commission should allow the new side loading garage and allow the additional hardcover to access the <br /> garage,but that their recommendation should not include the removal of any hardcover located within the <br /> easement area. <br /> Curtis asked if that would be within the entire blue area. <br /> Schoenzeit stated that would apply to either the blue and pink area,but that the applicant can add <br /> sufficient hardcover in order to access his new garage. <br /> Page <br /> 21 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.