My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
01-21-2020 Planning Commission Packet
Orono
>
Planning Commission
>
2020
>
01-21-2020 Planning Commission Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/22/2020 3:59:09 PM
Creation date
1/22/2020 9:41:44 AM
Metadata
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
228
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).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
MINUTES OF THE <br />ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br />Monday, November 18, 2019 <br />6:30 o’clock p.m. <br />_____________________________________________________________________________________ <br /> <br />Page 42 of 46 <br /> <br />McCutcheon noted the Commission is hesitant to put a cul-de-sac in when the Commissioners don't know <br />the end plan. Normally when there's a subdivision there's an entire picture put out so the Commission <br />knows if there's a unique opportunity for a common area, etc. The Commission does not have all the <br />pieces of the equation, so it is hard to give an answer. He did not know what would be wrong with <br />dictating that the Commission needs to see the full plan. <br /> <br />Barnhart indicated the City cannot require somebody to plat, which is kind of what is happening when <br />requiring them to include that in the plat. <br /> <br />McCutcheon said he cannot, in good conscious, subdivide a lot where the Commission knows there will <br />be future problems. <br /> <br />Ressler said it is not a perfect situation with that road, with the congestion and as narrow as it is now. He <br />agreed that 30 feet at a minimum should be the width, not 20. He stated a substandard lot is a substandard <br />lot, and the Commission is generally opposed to that for a subdivision. The Commission seems to say the <br />same thing as far as feedback goes but continues to not see what is being asked for. <br /> <br />Erickson stated this is virtually the same thing that was shown a couple of months ago. <br /> <br />Ressler noted there was an addition of a cul-de-sac. <br /> <br />Erickson said there was a cul-de-sac at that time, too, which in his mind is the only good feature of the <br />whole thing. <br /> <br />Gettman indicated there was no cul-de-sac. <br /> <br />Erickson said there are other features which are out of the question, and he agrees that the road right-of- <br />way should be 30 feet. He is willing to concur with the City Council that the cul-de-sac could be as far as <br />1,300 feet rather than 1,000. He pointed out that the 18-foot road is right next to the lake, it doesn't give a <br />measurement but it's within inches of the lake, and asked if there was enough room for a good guardrail. <br />It should be riprapped, there should be a guardrail to keep people from driving in the lake when you're <br />only 6 inches away from it. By the time a better job is done of centering that 30-foot right-of-way some <br />distance from the east side and also some distance from the floodplain on the west, then it will go right <br />through the middle of the property and there will be no room for any house, which is how it ought to be in <br />his opinion. The Commission's job is to respond to what's in front of it. <br /> <br />Ressler said the ongoing feedback is the Commission does not feel that Lot 2 is a buildable lot. <br /> <br />Barnhart stated that was fair. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.