Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br />ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br />Monday, May 19, 2014 <br />6:30 o’clock p.m. <br />_____________________________________________________________________________________ <br />  <br />Page 6 of 31  <br />  <br />Ciliberto stated in her view it would look better without the underground structure. Crystal Bay Road is <br />very narrow and has parking issues. Ciliberto stated an argument could also be made that retaining walls <br />do not look very nice but that in their view it might improve it slightly. Ciliberto stated they are willing <br />to go either way. <br /> <br />Landgraver commented the Planning Commission may be attempting to redesign the proposal too much <br />and that perhaps they should focus on what is being proposed. Landgraver stated he would like to make <br />sure the retaining wall is engineered appropriately. Landgraver stated in his view the lot is a hardship lot <br />and the shed should be permitted. <br /> <br />Leskinen asked if the Planning Commission is okay with the proposed new residence. <br /> <br />It was the consensus of the Planning Commission that the proposed residence and setbacks are fine. <br /> <br />Leskinen asked if the Planning Commission should recommend an escrow as it relates to the maintenance <br />of the shared driveway and roadway or how that is typically handled. <br /> <br />Gaffron stated the Planning Commission’s motion should include a recommendation that the shared <br />driveway and roadway be addressed. Gaffron stated the City does have some oversight of that road. <br /> <br />Leskinen stated she is comfortable with the application except for the shed, but with the absence of the <br />underground garage, there is enough of a practical difficulty to justify the shed given the proposed size of <br />the new garage. Leskinen stated the removal of the underground garage will improve the parking <br />situation on Crystal Bay Road. <br /> <br />Schwingler stated his biggest concern was Item No. 12, but noted that other construction work has been <br />completed in that neighborhood and they have worked around that. <br /> <br />Leskinen concurred the Planning Commission should consider a recommendation in their motion relating <br />to the roadway. <br /> <br />Schwingler stated in his view the biggest obstacle to construction traffic is the roadway. <br /> <br />Thiesse commented it would be difficult for the City to regulate construction traffic. <br /> <br />Schoenzeit stated care for the road during construction should be included in the motion. <br /> <br />Gaffron stated a pre-inspection of the roadway could be conducted as well as a post-construction <br />inspection. <br /> <br />Leskinen asked if there are any other hardcover items that could be eliminated other than the shed. <br /> <br />Gaffron stated since the location of the shed is unknown at this point, that should be determined prior to <br />the application going to the City Council since a variance for the shed will likely be required. <br /> <br />Leskinen asked whether that would require a separate application or whether it can be included in this <br />application. <br /> <br />Item #01 - PC Agenda - 06/16/2014 <br />Aproval of Planning Commission Minutes 05/19/2014 <br />[Page 6 of 31]