My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
12-11-2000 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
2000
>
12-11-2000 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/15/2023 10:17:08 AM
Creation date
3/15/2023 10:06:34 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.
/
494
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
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br />MINUTES FOR JANUARY 19, 2000 <br />Tium <br />ots <br />:h <br />d <br />Ling <br />loper <br />ion <br />(hout <br />r. <br />nt to <br />) this <br />s <br />Ck <br />es. <br />n of <br />ate <br />would <br />vi <br />fcv’ <br />8d. <br />(#2550 Charles Van Eeckhout, Continued) <br />Weinberger stated the City of Orono requires at the time a private or public road is constructed <br />within a subdivision that 50 feet of right-of-way is dedicated only for roadway purposes. Weinberger <br />stated the developer is requesting a 24 fool road width, with City Code requiring 28 fool. The <br />additional space is utilized for snow storage or shoulder. When it was originally platted, the <br />City required a ten foot roadway and utility easement across the north ten feet of Berkowski’s <br />property. <br />Berkowski inquired whether the trees located within that easement could potentially be removed. <br />Weinberger stated they could. <br />Berkowski commented in his view the access issue should be resolved. <br />Hawn commented from the information supplied tonight, it does not appear the road would <br />run across the northern portion of his property. <br />Kluth indicated access would become a condition of approval, and if not met, the subdivision <br />would not be approved. <br />Weinberger stated the City currently owns the ten foot easement. Vi/einberger stated City <br />Ordinance requires a 28 foot roadway, with a variance and a demonstration of a hardship being <br />necessary in order for the City to approve a 24 foot road. Staff is recommending construction of <br />a 28 foot roadway. <br />Berg stated they are etlempling to preserve as many of the trees in this area as possible, <br />noting there will be no parkJng on the roadway. <br />Smith commented the reason beiilnd the 28 fool requirement is to allow adequate access for <br />emergerncy vehicles. <br />Weinberger staled if the roadway were to service only six lots, it would require a 24 foot roadway. <br />Stoddard stated the developer may need to decide whether to create six lots or seven lots. <br />Weinberger stated the City of Orono has been very consistent In the past on what they approve <br />in terms of density. <br />Hawn commented the major issues before the Planning Commission tonight are access, size <br />of the lots, and the size of the roadway. <br />Weinberger pointed out even If six lots were created within this subdivision, the roadway itself <br />would be serving seven lots. <br />Hawn commented she personally would like to see bigger lots In this subdivision. <br />Nygard concurred that he would like to see larger lots within this development. <br />Kluth commented he would be agreeable to alloying a 24 foot road if only six lots were created. <br />Hawn staled the Applicant needs to submit the appropriate documentation to the City demonstrating <br />resolution of the access issue. <br />Page 12
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.