My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
12-14-2015 Councill Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
1950-2024
>
2010-2019
>
2015
>
12-14-2015 Councill Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/23/2015 10:02:41 AM
Creation date
12/23/2015 9:37:50 AM
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.
/
1094
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, November 23, 2015 <br />7:00 o’clock p.m. <br />_____________________________________________________________________________________ <br /> <br />Page 11 of 41 <br /> <br />discussions the Council had a few weeks ago relating to speed bumps. The applicant would be willing to <br />provide speed bumps if anyone on the City Council, the residents, or the police department feel they are <br />necessary. Malkerson stated all of this totals all sorts of conditions that in his 42 years of experience he <br />has never seen before as it relates to the construction activities for a public project and certainly not for <br />the construction of three homes. Malkerson stated his clients were willing to do it and that they will stand <br />by that offer. <br /> <br />On Page 3 it points out that the ordinances of the City do not require any of these things. There is an <br />ordinance concerning the hours of operation of certain equipment, such as diesel or gas-powered <br />machines or equipment. Malkerson noted his client has agreed to more stringent hours than what is <br />commonly allowed. <br /> <br />On the top of Page 4, it talks about that in addition to that ordinance, there are different sections that talk <br />about the regulation of streets, sidewalks and other public places. Malkerson noted there are no <br />restrictions anywhere relating to what his client is proposing to do. Malkerson stated there has never been <br />any restriction on what they are proposing to do even though these ordinances address at length the use of <br />public roads and the type of vehicles that can travel on them and the weight of those vehicles. Malkerson <br />stated there are exceptions called out in these ordinances as to the weight of vehicles for residential use or <br />for a project in the City because the drafters and enforcers of these ordinances understood at some point <br />there is a need for heavy trucks to be traveling on the public/city streets in order to have construction. <br /> <br />Page 5 notes that the application fully complies with the City’s subdivision ordinance. Malkerson stated <br />all aspects are complied with and that the applicant is willing to agree to the conditions even though they <br />are not required by the ordinances. Malkerson stated given all of the ordinances that the City has on the <br />use of public streets, these are the ordinances that apply, and they will comply with them. The <br />subdivision ordinance says they shall comply with other ordinances of the City, but it does not say <br />anywhere in the subdivision ordinance or in any other ordinance that the City can require the developer to <br />construct a separate construction road. Malkerson noted there is no requirement for that in the <br />subdivision ordinance and he does not believe the Council should be led to believe that they have that <br />authority. <br /> <br />Malkerson stated Page 7 assumes that the City could interpret the subdivision ordinance that way. Even <br />if that was the case, all of the traffic experts have said the use of the current road is safe now and will be <br />safe during construction, and therefore there is no rational nexus between requiring a road going up and <br />down a steep hill that has to be 20 feet wide. Malkerson stated there is no nexus or relationship between <br />any power the City has in the subdivision ordinance and the ability to require such a road. The policies of <br />the MCWD also say that you should not be disturbing those areas since they do not want to put at risk <br />those bluffs. <br /> <br />On the bottom of Page 9, there is a summary of what the expert traffic consultant has said concerning this <br />matter. His comments have been set forth in the minutes and are set forth in the letters from the <br />consultants. The City Engineer and the City’s consulting engineer have stated that the road is safe now <br />and will be safe during the construction activity. The applicant’s traffic consultant has also provided <br />lengthy testimony to the same effect. <br /> <br />Malkerson stated it comes down to two questions: Does the applicant comply with the City’s ordinances <br />relating to streets, and the answer is without a doubt yes. Does the applicant comply with the City’s <br />subdivision ordinance, and the answer is inescapable that they do indeed. Malkerson stated they would
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.