Laserfiche WebLink
asons are not <br />Drge W. Orning <br />an geography at <br />member of the <br />feels that the <br />sa of internally <br />affic on the <br />fic safety <br />that there is <br />jble facing lots <br />hazard is created <br />There is no <br />B) Additional <br />5, a developer <br />lat could have <br />ig feels that <br />jorhood community <br />letonka Homes, <br />rter referred to <br />lows: <br />divides <br />s. <br />the loss <br />of <br />of <br />J a de- <br />:tion <br />)ints out that <br />ig double facing <br />speaks against, <br />from the neigh- <br />) back yard <br />of them. By <br />)uous. As men- <br />"action. <br />best that can <br />egarding the <br />ing to meet <br />f . <br />:! fc : <br />t <br />V •' <br />H <br />f* <br />'*/ • a •'■sic- ■f’•lit •i^mr: <br />• ■ <br />The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council <br />The Members of the Planning Commission <br />Mrs. Jeanne Mabusth/Page 4 <br />with the council to express his views if the council so desired. <br />Finally, the present and past planning staff of the City of Orono both have per­ <br />sonally expressed to Richard Conry that they are personally opposed to the idea <br />of double facing lots. When the council asked Mrs. Mabusth to suggest an alterna <br />tive to the original concept plan, she submitted a sketch showing internal roads <br />which created double facing lots. She expressed her view to Mr. Conry and to the <br />council itself that she thought the idea of internal roads that created double <br />facing lots *.;as “a bad plan." <br />2. Economics <br />A. For the City: <br />The council is aware that there is a high probability that someday the <br />city will be responsible for the maintenance and snow removal of the interior <br />roads. The current concept plan has a total of 4,400 lineal feet of roadway. <br />By servicing the entire land with internal roads, the lineal footage increases <br />to approximately 6,900 lineal feet, or almost one-half mile of additional roadway. <br />B. For the Developer: <br />The applicant and*the owners of the land understand the council's po­ <br />sition is that economics for the developer is of no concern to them, however, in <br />the Resolution, Paragraph 13, the subject of economics is brought up by the con­ <br />cern expressed for the developer's property values through the following sentence: <br />"In the long range analysis, the Planning Commission believes these <br />regulations will aid in raising property values for the subdivider <br />and will affect many economies in the platting and development of a <br />logical subdivision." <br />IllThe addition of 2,500 lineal feet of road surface would add $88, <br />to the cost of the development. The addition of 2,500 lineal feet of additional <br />road right-of-way removes 125,000 square feet of land from the development. In <br />this particular development, it removes two building sites. The addition of <br />2,500 lineal feet of 26 foot wide hard cover roadway adds an additional 65,0i <br />square feet of hard cover surface, which will require additional holding ponds. <br />These three factors added together comes to a substantial sum of money. <br />Ill <br />As to the question of property values, we would ask each council member: <br />"Would you buy a double facing lot?" <br />’■m <br />t <br />yyAm <br />The Hon <br />The Mem <br />Mrs. Oe <br />total Cl <br />is 1,361 <br />Old Cry! <br />curb cui <br />E <br />1,360 li <br />traffic <br />lineal 1 <br />C <br />the atta <br />existed <br />1959. k <br />built in <br />proposed <br />0 <br />1 <br />the appl <br />cuts as : <br />southwesi <br />Watertowr <br />facing, 1 <br />5. <br />5.