Laserfiche WebLink
ORONO PLANNING CZ:AC4rSSION <br />Sentcmber 19, 1983 <br />Page 5 <br />They also point out that the project is to be developed at a <br />and that a a-�t_st_c3i pr.car,__�- t e <br />combination of events that Ncul•' need to cccur to prohibit <br />passage in an emergency are very small. They may 'nave <br />additional arguments in favor of their proposal, but we believe <br />these to be their main points. <br />Clearly, no one 'nvolved 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 community 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 res'_dent needed emer-:encv <br />treatment. <br />SUMMARY/ REC0?M%--`MAT10N <br />We recommend that the Planning commission approve the proposed <br />rezoning of this portion of the Rebers 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 developmen`. We would recommend acting <br />on this portion of the request as a separate motion. <br />We also recommend that you approve the proposed PRO <br />(conditional use permit) and subdivision and we suggest 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 />air each approac". <br />1. Ad opt the rol-icants P ars as P-esented <br />Since t`;e proposed cul-de-sac length does nct require a <br />variance, you do not legally need to :ind a ars.^.ip to approve <br />and *:no argument3 advanced the pr Ucr.e -s provide a <br />rational basis for this request. 1f you e:cose tnis <br />a.ternati✓s, we recommend that findings be prepared before <br />final approval is grantad to ac;:ncwleage the uniqueness <br />