My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
10-26-2015 Council Minutes
Orono
>
City Council
>
2015
>
10-26-2015 Council Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/1/2015 1:59:59 PM
Creation date
12/1/2015 1:59:07 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
23
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
MINUTES OF THE <br />ORONO CITY COUNCIL. MEETING <br />Monday, October 26, 2015 <br />7:00 o'clock p.m. <br />10. #15-3774 MICHAEL STEADMAN ON BEHALF OF IRWIN JACOBS,1700 <br />SHORELINE DRIVE, PRELIMINARY PLAT — REVIEW CUL-DE-SAC ALTERNATIVES <br />(continued) <br />4. Without a cul-de-sac that meets current City standards, emergency and maintenance vehicles may <br />have difficulty accessing the new development and turning around. The proposed layouts should <br />be reviewed by the Fire Department. <br />5. The "no new cul-de-sac" alternative would not result in any significant change to traffic patterns <br />or views. However, not adding the new cul-de-sac could easily result in sightseers continuing <br />past the existing cul-de-sac and then having to maneuver to exist the site. <br />6. City maintenance of the public road will be less efficient if the new cul-de-sac is not built. Or, <br />will the City simply not plow past the existing cul-de-sac and expect the three new homeowners <br />to plow not only their own driveways but the added 300 feet to get to the existing cul-de-sac? <br />7. The alternate plan would result in only 6 —10 less significant trees requiring removal when <br />comparing the two plans side-by-side. The minimal tree savings does not justify the creation of <br />another substandard road, a public one at that, in the City. <br />The amount of hardcover needed to be added is roughly equal in each plan. A full new cul-de-sac <br />coupled with removal of portions of the existing cul-de-sac, is roughly the equivalent in <br />hardcover of simply adding driveways and expanding the existing cul-de-sac to meet code. <br />9. If no new cul-de-sac is provided, construction traffic during home construction is more likely to <br />spill out onto the existing Heritage Lane cul-de-sac despite the efforts to avoid such activity. The <br />applicant has proposed onsite parking for the construction traffic, which will help keep traffic off <br />of Heritage Lane. <br />10. City Engineer Edwards recommends that whether a new cul-de-sac is built or the existing one <br />expanded, surmountable concrete curbing should be used rather than asphalt curbing. A suitable <br />transition from existing asphalt curbing to concrete curbing is easily accomplished and asphalt <br />curbing is a maintenance issue. <br />Staff recommends that the original plan to create a new cul-de-sac be approved, accompanied by removal <br />of the excess portions of the existing cul-de-sac. Staff would oppose the alternate plan. <br />If the Council determines that the alternate pian should be followed, Staff recommends that the existing <br />cul-de-sac be brought up to City standard as part of the development improvements and a determination <br />made as to future maintenance of the extended road. <br />Levang asked where the bus would turn around if existing portions of the cul-de-sac are removed. <br />Gaffron indicated it would turn around on the new road that would have the new cul-de-sac. <br />Levang asked if he is suggesting the new cul-de-sac be further in. <br />Gaffron stated Staff is recommending creating a straight stretch of road with the cul-de-sac at the end. <br />Page 7 of 23 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.