My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
01-13-1997 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
1997
>
01-13-1997 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/31/2023 2:16:51 PM
Creation date
7/31/2023 2:15:00 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
200
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
MUnJTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO PARK COMMISSION <br />MEETING HELD ON NOVEMBER 4, 1996 O <br />(#10 - Review of O'Sullivan Application - Continued) <br />O’Sullivan asked how wide the path would have to be between the two parking areas <br />along Navarre Lane. Flint said the current recommendation by some experts is 10' but the <br />Park Commission has established 8' as standard. Gaffron asked if there was anything <br />unique where a trail could be less wide. Flint said that 6' was just not wide enough for a <br />two-way trail. McDermott noted th4.t 6' was the width given on the north side, but he too <br />felt 8* should be required. Use asked that the trail be carefully considered. <br />Gaffron informed the Commission that there is 33' to look at. With the bank and parking <br />lot and need for variances, Gaffron questioned whether the remaining right-of-way should <br />be ^ven up noting that 33' has already been vacated. He noted that the site could be <br />hideous if there are no green areas. <br />Flint asked who would be available for the Planning Commission meeting review. Gaffron <br />said he would follow up with their recommendation of Navarre Lane at the meeting. <br />O'Sullivan said he would look at the option and see if it will work. He noted there was <br />still the question of the wall with most of the ramp on someone else's property. Gaffron <br />said there is 20' between the pond and Navarre L^e and asked whether the trail can be <br />accomplished within that space. Gaffron noted that if Navarre Lane is not vacated, there <br />would be the possibility of a nice slope without retaining walls. Goetten also noted that <br />the additional information gained from the meeting between the developer and the <br />Watershed District wll be valuable. Gaffron said a problem would arise if the pond needs <br />to grow outside of the area currently designated. O’Sullivan said he was informed that the <br />City had been waiting to vacate Navarre Lane for a long time, and he was surprised when <br />this issue came up at the Council meeting. <br />Use asked when vacations occur, if there is a charge made or is it a gift. Gaffron said it is <br />a gift. Once the City concludes that they have no need for the property, the property is <br />usually then divided between the neighboring properties. Gaffron noted there is need for <br />utilities in Navarre Lane, and an easement would be taken; but the utility easement also <br />may show the need for access. Gaffron said there is also room for bargaining if the <br />developer wants the vacation. <br />Flint noted that assistance can be given with the pond by vacating a portion of the lane <br />while maintaining the other half Gaffron informed the Commission that the site plan for <br />the Culver’s Restaurant is already on the east side of the 33'. McDermott noted there <br />would also be an additional 8' if the project was moved 8' over to the north with <br />elimination of the Olive Avenue trail. Flint commented that there might not be room for a <br />ramp.
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.