My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
06-08-1998 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
1998
>
06-08-1998 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/5/2024 2:28:34 PM
Creation date
6/5/2024 2:19:04 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.
/
404
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
#2372 - Haglund - Preliminary Subdivision <br />Junes, 1998 <br />Page 4 <br />How or when the road should be upgraded, or whether the road should be upgraded at all, is a topic <br />for discussion. The gravel road averages 15' wide and will serve as the only access for 7 homes, with <br />the potential for a number of additional homes if the Armstrong property is developed in the future. <br />This road could potentially be continued westward to connect with Co. Rd. 19 or north to Bayside. <br />The City standard for such a road is a 50* corridor with a 28' paved road width, ending in a paved <br />cul-de-sac. <br />With the ambiguous road ownership situation, it would be in the best interests of all parties if the <br />City acquires title to the entire 33’ corridor as well as additional r.o.w. on each side of it from <br />adjacent properties as necessary. The City could then make a determination as to the degree of <br />upgrade which would be completed by the City and an appropriate portion of the costs assessed back <br />to the benefitting property ovmers. <br />A more radical option would be for the City to discontinue maintenance of the road and let the road <br />users form an association to decide what level of road service is acceptable. Staff is not <br />recommending this, given the anticipated additional use this road may have in the future. <br />In order that the current subdivision process be allowed to move forward, staff is recommending that <br />the applicants not be held up while the City determines the future of North Arm Lane. <br />Access for Existing Residence. <br />The existing residence is served by a driveway directly to North Arm Drive West, which is a local <br />City road with many direct driveway accesses. Because this is a local road with relatively low traffic <br />levels, it may be appropriate to allow the continuation of this driveway location rather than force its <br />relocation to North Ami Lane. Applicants note they may wish to move the driveway to North Arm <br />Lane in the future to eliminate a problem with the grade where the driveway exits onto the road. <br />Summary' of Issues for Discussion <br />1 . To what extent should the applicants be required to dedicate additional right-of-way? Does <br />Council agree with staffs sketch for dedicating added right-of-way as well as an an easement <br />for a portion of a cul-de-sac? Is there any reason to take the entire cul-de-sac from this <br />subdivision, as opposed to centering it on the existing road corridor? <br />2. Should the City pursue formal acquisition of the 33' corridor? <br />3. To what extent should North Arm Lane be upgraded, if at all? By whom? At whose <br />expense? <br />4. Does Council have any other concerns or comments?
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.