Laserfiche WebLink
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION <br />September 19, 1988 <br />Page 6 <br />They also point out that the project is to be developed at a <br />very low density and that the statistical probability of the <br />combination of events that would need to occur to prohibit <br />passage in an emergency are very small. They may have <br />additional arguments in favor of their proposal, but we believe <br />these to be their main points. <br />Clearly, no one involved in this process wants to clear any <br />more trees and understory than is absolutely necessary. It is <br />also true that the statistical probability of blocked access to <br />remote lots in this subdivision are very small. But, the <br />problem lies with the fact that we are dealing with the set of <br />rules that apply to the entire c;'mmunity and to the standards <br />that you feel are reasonable throughout the City. It is also <br />unfortunately true that we do experience tornadoes and wind <br />storms in this area and given the narrow width of the proposed <br />streets and the densely wooded nature of the property, a tree <br />could blow over in a storm and block the street. The <br />statistical probability may be low, but the down side risk <br />could also be very high if a resident needed emergency <br />treatment. <br />SUMMARY/ RECOMMENDATION <br />We recommend that the Planning Commission approve tree proposed <br />rezoning of this portion of the Rebe:s property. This request <br />can be developed in a manner that is fully consistent with the <br />Comprehensive Plan and from all representations it appears to <br />be a very high quality development. We would recommend acting <br />on this portion of the request as a separate motion. <br />We also recommend that you approve the proposed PRD <br />(conditional use permit) and subdivision and we Luggest three <br />alternative actions for your consideration. They are by no <br />means suggested as all of the reasonable actions that you may <br />choose to take, but we believe that there is a rational basis <br />for each approach. <br />1. Accept the Applicants Plans as Presented <br />Since the proposed cul-de-sac length does not require a <br />variance, you do not legally need to find a hardship to approve <br />it and the arguments advanced by the proponents do provide a <br />rational basis for this request. If you choose this <br />alternative, we recommend that findings be prepared before <br />final approval is granted to acknowledge the uniqueness <br />