My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
07-20-1987 Planning Packet
Orono
>
Planning Commission
>
1987
>
07-20-1987 Planning Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/3/2024 1:32:13 PM
Creation date
1/3/2024 1:25:19 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.
/
246
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
Zoning File #1128 <br />May 14, 1987 <br />Page 2 of 3 <br />On the other hand, in moving the access as far south as it can go, we <br />end up with a roadway right next to Blair’s residence, which according to <br />our airphoto basemaps is only a few feet from the property line. <br />Staff feels compelled on a purely technical basis to recommend <br />approval of the access location as proposed, since it meets the standards <br />for the posted speed limit; staff also feels that there may be legal <br />ramifications regardless of what we do, i.e. if we deny the technically <br />acceptable access, the developer might take action; if we approve it and <br />there is an accident due to excessive speed and the City was aware of a <br />speed problem, does the City have liability? Staff suggests these concerns <br />be researched by the City Attorney prior to Council preliminary plat <br />approval. <br />A third option to consider is lowering the grade on Old Crystal Bay <br />Road, which the County would be ameanable to, but will not sharo in the <br />cost at this point. It is likely that as the area develops, the County <br />will eventually flatten the grade here. <br />The City would be judicious in requesting an additional 7' road <br />dedication along the west side of Lot 1, Block 1, not necessarily because <br />the County requested it (the City has historically supported the County's <br />requested 80' right-of-way width only on "minor arterial" roads, and not on <br />"scenic parkways" or "collector roads" as County Road 84 is designated in <br />the Community Management Plan), but to accommodate the bank slope for a <br />future grade lowering. <br />C. Future Access to the North <br />Dennis Kumlin, who is completing a subdivision to the north of this <br />proposed plat, has noted that a road corridor connecting the two plats will <br />have a highly detrimental effect on the character of his property as well <br />as the value and security of the property, and he is definitely opposed to <br />such a request, especially considering that he received preliminary plat <br />approval already. From a security standpoint, a through road would allow <br />for added police protection of the area. <br />Staff sees two benefits to having the road connected: <br />1. Emergency response time from points east could be reduced as much <br />as 30-60 seconds; this seems to be a minor benefit. <br />2. If the City was to take over these private roads someday, it would <br />be more efficient to maintain them as one "through" road rather than <br />two cul-de-sacs. <br />Any dedication of right-of-way from Kumlin's plat will result in lot <br />area shortages, hence he would have to relocate lot lines. On the other <br />hand, taking an entire 50'corridor from Lot 2, Block 1, will leave it at or <br />slightly below 4 dry acres, causing future subdivision problems.
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.