Laserfiche WebLink
Metadata
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015 Laserfiche. All rights reserved.
MINUTES OF THE <br />ORONO CITY PLANNING COMMISSION <br />Monday, October 21, 2013 <br />6:30 o’clock p.m. <br />_____________________________________________________________________________________ <br />  <br />Page 16 of 42  <br />  <br />Leskinen asked when he is talking about easements for people to walk back there, if he is speaking of the <br />homeowners and not the public. <br /> <br />Stickney indicated the homeowners and neighbors would likely be allowed in that area but that it would <br />need to be looked at as to who can use the property. <br /> <br />Leskinen stated if the area is under private ownership, there could be some liability issues associated with <br />allowing the public in that area. <br /> <br />Lemke asked if he would be developing the property himself. <br /> <br />Stickney indicated he is merely selling the property and that he was asked by the developer to help guide <br />the development. <br /> <br />Landgraver asked if the applicant would be amenable to pushing some of the houses back. <br /> <br />Stickney indicated it would be and that they have attempted to listen to the concerns expressed by the <br />neighbors. <br /> <br />Chair Leskinen opened the public hearing at 7:58 p.m. <br /> <br />John Quam, 3760 Northern Avenue, indicated he is very much opposed to the layout of the development <br />especially as it relates to Lot 1. Quam illustrated how the proposed driveway would be located next to his <br />bedroom and that it would also create runoff issues. Quam noted his property is lower than the adjoining <br />property with the natural drainage going towards his house. Quam indicated there will also be issues with <br />snow piling and runoff in the springtime. Quam stated he currently has problems with the current grading <br />and runoff and that he would like to see the driveway moved to the east side of the lot to minimize the <br />disruption to his family with the lights and noise. <br /> <br />Chair Leskinen closed the public hearing at 8:00 p.m. <br />` <br />Leskinen indicated she prefers the PRD versus the RPUD and Option 2 with the outlot scenario. <br />Leskinen stated she has a concern with access to the back of the property if they were single lots going all <br />the way back. Leskinen noted neighbors do not always get along. <br /> <br />Thiesse indicated he has a problem with associations and that he would prefer ownership of that area be <br />held by the individual property owners. <br /> <br />Landgraver stated the outlot is a solution that is not really solving anything. <br /> <br />McGrann stated the purchase agreement will spell out the fact that Lot 3 will have a creek in the back <br />portion of their property and that easements will be required to gain access to that area. <br /> <br />Landgraver stated he envisioned a path going all the way around the wetland. <br /> <br />Thiesse stated he would like to see the house on Lot 1 moved forward to accommodate the house to the <br />west of the development. <br /> <br />Item #01 - PC Agenda - 11/18/2013 <br />Approval of Planning Commission Minutes 10/21/2013 <br />[Page 16 of 42]