My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
02/21/2012 Planning Commission Minutes
Orono
>
Agendas, Minutes & Packets
>
Planning Commission
>
Minutes
>
2010-2019
>
2012
>
02/21/2012 Planning Commission Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/20/2012 3:21:06 PM
Creation date
8/20/2012 3:21:05 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
16
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 /> Tuesday,February 21,2012 <br /> 6:30 o'clock p.m. <br /> quite unusual for the City to try to protect an easement situation like that as opposed to public <br /> improvements. <br /> Schoenzeit asked if the City goes after contractors for damage. <br /> Curtis indicated they have in certain situation where a public street has been damaged by a contractor. <br /> Thiesse stated the issue is that the driveway agreement is between two people but the applicant was not <br /> part of that agreement. <br /> Curtis noted the easement goes over all three properties. <br /> Thiesse noted the owner of the subject property does not use the easement. <br /> Gaffron stated whoever created the easement did not include in that some requirements for how it gets <br /> used or maintained,which is unfortunate,but that an escrow is not something the City has ever required <br /> in that type of situation in the past. <br /> Levang commented the Planning Commission perhaps should have taken the approach that it was an issue <br /> between the property owners. <br /> Gaffron stated the Planning Commission could have directed Staff to see whether an escrow could be <br /> required by the City. <br /> Leskinen noted the Planning Commission is a recommending body and that the City Attorney is not <br /> present at the meetings to provide legal advice. <br /> Levang asked whether the neighbors will be notified that the escrow will not be required. <br /> Curtis indicated she will send the staff report and resolution to the interested neighbor. <br /> Leskinen stated the Turnham application was eventually approved and a condition was added to have the <br /> existing home removed prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy. Two other conditions were <br /> removed. <br /> Bremer commented the City Council felt those conditions were redundant. <br /> Leskinen stated the wording strongly encouraged as it relates to the signage on the Luce Line was not felt <br /> to be a condition by the City Attorney. The other item that was discussed by the Council was 3508 Ivy <br /> Place,which was approved. The Ferndale West application was approved without a turnaround. ' <br /> Curtis stated the Council approved his request consistent with the Planning Commission's <br /> recommendation and the applicant has submitted revised plans. His resolution will be before the City <br /> Council at the next meeting. <br /> Page <br /> 15 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.