Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION <br /> Monday,April 15,2019 <br /> 6:30 o'clock p.m. <br /> Barnhart stated as it has been pointed out,the City has approved a narrower road width due to extenuating <br /> circumstances but there have also been numerous times where the roadway width was held to 24 feet. <br /> That decision is up to the Planning Commission and City Council. <br /> Ressler stated he views this more as a shared driveway and that the debate comes down to whether the <br /> width should be 20 or 24 feet and that he does not care if it is a hammerhead or a cul-de-sac. Ressler <br /> questioned whether a school bus would go down a private driveway and stated the 20-foot width would <br /> accommodate guests who park on the road. Ressler indicated he is in support of it. <br /> Libby commented he is glad the Conservation District has reviewed and vetted the wetlands,which <br /> makes him more comfortable in regard to the environmental issues. As it relates to disturbing tree roots, <br /> it does not take much to disturb them and some of the trees may be lost even with the 20-foot width. <br /> Libby indicated he would be in favor of the 20-foot width. <br /> Erickson stated the applicant makes a good case for the 20-foot width for the majority of the length. If <br /> the third house uses it,the applicant expressed a willingness to extend it to 24 feet. Erickson noted the <br /> City of Long Lake rebuild a road in their industrial park to 20 feet and that has lots of semis going in and <br /> out. Erickson stated he does not feel the 20-foot width will be a problem unless there are a number of <br /> people parking on the road. <br /> Barnhart stated he has heard a number of comments for how they can engineer this roadway to address <br /> different issues. Barnhart stated school buses will drive down a public road,but noted the City cannot <br /> necessarily ask the residents to enforce a no parking zone so there will be parking on the road. The City <br /> has a standard in place to address these concerns and that he would question why the City would deviate <br /> from the standards when the Planning Commission is aware of Staff's concerns. <br /> McCutcheon asked how many trees would be impacted. <br /> Stickney indicated they will lose more trees than one or two. <br /> Thiesse noted this is a preliminary plat and that can be reviewed further. <br /> Stickney stated their goal would be zero tree loss. <br /> Thiesse stated he would be in agreement with Staff, and that unless there are some extenuating <br /> circumstances for not following the standards,they should uphold those. If the road is pushed northerly, <br /> the trees could be saved. Thiesse suggested someone review the hammerhead versus a cul-de-sac. <br /> Stickney stated the roadway is so close to being a private driveway but that technically it is not a private <br /> driveway. In the Bracketts Point situation,the hammerhead worked for three 2-acre lots and it should be <br /> able to work here since they are talking really about two lots that will use the roadway. Stickney <br /> questioned how many times the City has accepted a 24-foot highway for two lots. <br /> Curtis noted it is still considered three lots. <br /> Thiesse stated at the end of the day,there is nothing that says the development cannot fit a 24-foot <br /> roadway, and unless they can't,the City has standards they need to uphold. <br /> Page 6 of 29 <br />