Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL <br />MEETING HELD ON MARCH 9,1998 <br />(#10 - #2339 James Render - Continued) <br />KeUey disagreed with Jabbour. He felt it was appropriate to have a cul-de-sac wth a 28* <br />wide road. Kelley said the lots will be restricted in hardcover and no parking will be <br />available for these homes with a smaU narrow driveway. A 28’ road with cul-de-sac <br />would enable more cars to park and enable fire trucks to better access the properties if <br />need be. KeUey noted that roads also become nanower in the winter months with snow <br />storage. <br />Jabbour did not support giving credit for hardcover for the road easement as it would set <br />a precedent. Goetten agreed. <br />Jabbour asked if the NURP pond was considered hardcover. GaflQron said it was not <br />allowable towards the defined lot area, but he noted hardcover credit has normally been <br />given for wetlands in the past, and logic would support giving hardcover credit for a <br />pond as it is similar to wetlands. <br />Goetten is concerned with having a snowball effect with a 28' road, cul-de-sac, and a <br />future connection of Birch Lane to Tonkawa. She feels the connection is not necessary <br />and would impact the neighbors. She felt the connection road would be used by dnvers <br />to by-pass major roads even if it is a private road. She reiterated she would not support <br />giving credit for hardcover for the road easement. Goetten felt a large cul-de-sac for <br />Three lots was more than necessaiy. She felt the T would be sufficient if it ad^uately <br />provided for the fire department needs. Goetten indicated she also supports the need for <br />the NURP pond. <br />Jabbour polled the CouncU. He noted that if the cul-de-sac was eliminated, a re^on <br />would have to be established as the code calls for the cul-de-sac. He noted this has een <br />a concern in other small subdivisions in the last few years. Gaffiron indicated that there <br />are many rural 3-lot subdivisions with cul-de-sacs. Gaflfron cited examples of where cul- <br />de-sacs were and were not used. <br />Goetten indicated that the need for cul-de-sacs has been reviewed case by case. <br />Jabbour indicated that if the Council agrees with a hammerhead style, they would then be <br />agreeing that it is a suitable substitute. <br />Moorse noted that the requirement for a cul-de-sac is to enable a fire tmek to <br />turnaround. He said that with smaller lots trucks do not have to go as fv mto the <br />property, and this can be used as a reason for a T versus a cul-de-sac. He noted the fire <br />chief indicated that a T is adequate but not as easy for the trucks to maneuver. Moo«e <br />suggested reviewing the length of the road may be a consideration on whether a cul-de- <br />sac should be required.