Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br />ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING <br />Monday, October 26, 2015 <br />7:00 o’clock p.m. <br />_____________________________________________________________________________________ <br /> <br />Page 7 of 23 <br /> <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 /> <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 /> <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 /> <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 /> <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 /> <br />8. 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 /> <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 /> <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 /> <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 /> <br />If the Council determines that the alternate plan 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 /> <br />Levang asked where the bus would turn around if existing portions of the cul-de-sac are removed. <br /> <br />Gaffron indicated it would turn around on the new road that would have the new cul-de-sac. <br /> <br />Levang asked if he is suggesting the new cul-de-sac be further in. <br /> <br />Gaffron stated Staff is recommending creating a straight stretch of road with the cul-de-sac at the end.