My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
05-24-1999 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
1999
>
05-24-1999 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/12/2023 3:35:44 PM
Creation date
4/12/2023 3:29:21 PM
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.
/
563
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
• i <br />f <br />#2466 Renckens & Winston <br />May 21,1999 <br />Page 8 <br />ORONO'S ROADWAY CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM (Excerpts from descriptions of <br />various types of roadways) P. 7-16, 7-17: <br />Private Road: <br />Maximum Service: Approximately 10 residential properties <br />Dead -end: Length will be limited by public safety considerations <br />Private Driveway <br />Maximum Service: 1 residence typical; joint driveways allowed with maximum three <br />residents per driveway in rural areas: more users require private road <br />standards <br />Driveway width: Will be regulated where more than one user is involved or for <br />public safety purposes where there is excessive length between the residence <br />and the public road <br />In the opinion of staff, the above CMP excerpts strongly support the premise that Crystal Creek <br />Road should be continued eastward to eventually connect with other area roads, for public safety <br />purposes as w ell as for future efficiency of maintenance if the private road is someday converted to <br />a public road. <br />Whether or not the 50' outlet is required, access for the north lot should come from Crystal Creek <br />Road (as now proposed) to avoid the need for an excessively long driveway. Further, staff strongly <br />urges that the flag portion of the back lot be platted as a 30' outlet corridor for the following reasons: <br />1. Preserves the integrity of the back-lot/front-lot ordinance. <br />2. Preserves the appropriate setbacks for the north lot (i.e. the south east-west line of the north <br />lot becomes a front lot line as the code intended) <br />In staffs opinion the loss of acreage to a code-required 30' driveway outlot is not a hardship. <br />Further, if the north lot is served from a 50' road to the north, there will be ample acreage to do a lot <br />split with both lots having 200 feet of frontage on that road. The problem here is that Renckens' <br />vision of future development of the north lot is to place the initial residence in a location making a <br />side-by-side split impossible, and ultimately splitting off the south half of the north lot as a flag lot <br />using the 30' corridor to Watertown for access (but needing a lot area variance to do so). <br />Access to Outlot B, Crystal Creek <br />Alan Carlson, original developer of the adjacent Crystal Creek subdivision, owns Outlot B, Crystal <br />Creek, which does not abut any public or private roadway. The City has no apparent legal obligation
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.