My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
02-22-2021 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
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 19 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 />would be somewhat different. She doesn’t like the plans either; she is sure the Applicant has worked hard <br />on it, but it feel like it creates a bunch of problems. At the end of the day if the City Council follows the <br />code which is the job, it kind of meets the requirements. Seals again stated she does not like it and she <br />agrees lots of people try to cross that death-trap of a road constantly but it is up to them. It does feel <br />overly congested and that back line with Tanager seems a little suspect but they have shown it over and <br />over to her. Seals noted they are right – that is what it is zoned for. <br /> <br />Walsh stated, obviously knowing the rules, the Applicant has gone and reshaped their plan to fit the rule <br />versus trying to massage the rule. He thinks they changed the whole ALS line to be consistent with what <br />the City code specifically says. <br /> <br />Crosby said the line on Tanager is set where it is simply because the lot next to it does not have anything <br />built. <br /> <br />Walsh agreed that is right and most likely it will actually be closer when it gets built or the permit is <br />pulled that flags that. <br /> <br />Crosby stated it is a timing issue and it wouldn’t really affect that anyway. <br /> <br />Walsh noted if they want to wait for it then they can have a better spot to build. <br /> <br />Crosby stated it would not inhibit that. <br /> <br />Walsh said no, that would not inhibit it and that was partly Johnson’s question. <br /> <br />Johnson asked if the Council is at the mercy of the County to decide about the turn lanes at the end of the <br />day. <br /> <br />Attorney Mattick replied not strictly, no. He would have concerns if the Council had decided that the turn <br />lane was not necessary. <br /> <br />Johnson asked if the City Council can put conditions in; he thinks the best use of that if this goes through <br />and it has to be there, then to him the best case scenario is a center turn lane coming from east bound <br />property, the west bound turn lane, and the acceleration lane on the other side. That is the perfect <br />scenario. <br /> <br />Crosby said there will not be enough room. <br /> <br />Johnson asked how they make sure that is understood. If he made a motion that it is his preference – <br />maybe it is impossible. <br /> <br />Walsh suggested they could say as a preference the City Council would like to get response from the <br />County on the feasibility of the middle turn lane and the acceleration lane. <br />Crosby asked if they are talking about an east bound center turn lane. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.