My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
02-22-2021 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
1950-2024
>
2021
>
02-22-2021 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/15/2021 9:39:41 AM
Creation date
4/15/2021 9:37:15 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
109
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 CITY COUNCIL MEETING <br />Monday, February 8, 2021 <br />6:03 p.m. <br />_____________________________________________________________________________________ <br /> <br />Page 8 of 26 <br /> <br />19. LA20-000048 - TIMOTHY WHITTEN O/B/O I. JACOBS/A. JACOBS REVOCABLE <br />TRUST, 1700 SHORELINE DRIVE, PRELIMINARY PLAT - RESOLUTION – Continued <br /> <br />Walsh thinks the question Johnson was asking at the Planning Commission, the Burwell’s brought up that <br />in constructing the turn lane they were under the impression that their private property would be used to <br />do that turn lane. He thought someone at the time said they would not have to be on or take any of the <br />Burwell’s private property to make that happen. <br /> <br />Johnson clarified it was not the turn lane but he thought there was some concern that the activity of doing <br />this development and putting in this shared driveway where it exists as a singular driveway now was <br />going to impact some of the trees on their property. <br /> <br />Mr. Whitten stated he is not aware that it will impact but he will let Mr. Gronberg reply to that. They are <br />putting the road basically in the same position that the existing road is but it will be a little bit wider. <br /> <br />Johnson noted the Planning Commission was also asked to get a dock plan and asked if the Applicant has <br />gotten that far. <br /> <br />Mr. Whitten said they have not gone through that exercise yet. <br /> <br />Johnson said the Applicant got rid of Outlot D which he thinks is a good idea based on the feedback from <br />the Planning Commission and asked if they will likely do a joint dock down there. <br /> <br />Mr. Whitten thinks that is a possibility and it will likely be up to the property owners to decide whether <br />they would have a joint dock. <br /> <br />Barnhart clarified the Code does allow joint-use dock facilities but that is done at the time of the <br />subdivision so that decision would have to be made as part of the final plan at the latest stage. <br /> <br />Walsh assumes the owners of the property would have to agree to do that. <br /> <br />Barnhart said yes. <br /> <br />Walsh stated they could have three individual dock formations and they would all have to get along to do <br />a shared dock. <br /> <br />Johnson said it is either that or risk your life heading to your dock on Lot 3. He understands the <br />Applicant will clear trees over 4 inches along the lakeshore but that does not necessarily make it safer. <br />He thinks the Planning Commission hit on it – the turn lane is relevant and Johnson does not know what <br />jurisdiction the City has in dictating that or not. However, there is no safe way to cross this as it is a busy <br />road; he noted he lives just down the street and goes by there all the time. For the value of the <br />development, the Applicant wants to mitigate that as much as possible and Johnson thinks that all the <br />crossings that occur here are at an increased amount of risk as it is a busy road. Whatever they can do to <br />keep people from continuing down this road even farther is something to be looked at whether that is a <br />sidewalk or whatever that is. <br /> <br />Walsh asked if Johnson would suggest that he would want a joint dock put in to solve some of that. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.