My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
09-15-1997 Planning Packet
Orono
>
Planning Commission
>
1997
>
09-15-1997 Planning Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/6/2023 10:10:36 AM
Creation date
9/6/2023 10:01:59 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.
/
476
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
r <br />#2239 - Sketch Plan <br />May 16, 1997 <br />Page 4 <br />extended within Garden Lane at the time of construction to serv e Lot 70 (or which direction <br />that sewer would come from). Planning Commission should discuss this as part of the sketch <br />plan review. <br />0.Park Impacts . This proposal forces the issue of providing access to the new Saga Hill <br />park/open space areas. The sketch plan proposal suggests a vacation of Garden Lane with <br />portions accruing to Lots 1,2 and 3. In Lot 2, the vacation would remove from possible park <br />inclusion the northwesterly rim of the ravine. The City has no intent to vacate any portion <br />of Garden Lane near the ravine, and the City must maintain access to the park areas via <br />Garden Lane. <br />Based on these factors, approval of a northerly cul-de-sac as proposed is questionable. There <br />may be some rationale for a cul-de-sac that defines the end of the residential property with <br />a continuation of the road to a future potential City parking lot further north serving the park. <br />Or, there may be no need tor such a cul-de-sac if the City's future parking lot acts as a turn <br />around for emergency and maintenance vehicles. Exhibit G suggests some alternatives for <br />park access and road dedication. Also, remember that the Hennessey lot (Lot 63 Just north <br />of the ravine) caimot be left landlocked. And, if there is no need for a cul-de-sac within <br />Garden Lane, is there any reason to bring the Sollner lot into this subdivision, other than to <br />serve it with road and utilities? <br />6.Park Dedication. This sketch plan application will be forwarded to the Park Commission for <br />review’ at their next meeting. Given the location of the park area, it is possible Park <br />Commission will want land dedication rather than collecting a fee as part of this subdivision. <br />The developer will need to know what land is to be dedicated. Land in the area of the <br />northerly ravine is the most likely candidate for dedication. <br />Please review the City Engineer's letter of May 15 (Exhibit E) <br />Summary of Issues for Discussion <br />Planning Commission should provide applicant with general direction regarding the following <br />issues; <br />Road system configuration, need for cul-de-sacs. <br />Public vs. private roads. <br />Whether Sollner property needs to be part of plat. <br />Future access to Lots 63 and 70. <br />Whether lot width variances noted are acceptable. <br />Whether vacation of Garden Lane will be considered <br />Address any issues or concerns raised by City Engineer. <br />Address any other issues raised by staff or applicant. <br />1. <br />2. <br />3. <br />4. <br />5. <br />6. <br />7. <br />g.
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.