Laserfiche WebLink
MIIYUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br /> Monday,June 15,2015 <br /> 6:30 o'clock p.m. <br /> Lemke asked what would happen if the cul-de-sac was eliminated and was just a through street. <br /> Hanish stated that will create some issues with one of the lots as far as having road access and lot width at <br /> the road. <br /> Gaffron stated unless that through connection is created and paved,the applicants would still require a <br /> cul-de-sac for emergency services. <br /> Thiesse asked if there is any opportunity to pull it back to the intersection. <br /> Gaffron indicated they would lose the required width for the one lot. <br /> Hanish indicated they did look at that very closely to see if they could make that work but that they <br /> determined it would not. <br /> Landgraver asked if there is access to Wear Lane. <br /> Gaffron indicated there is. Gaffron stated Wear Lane continues out to Watertown Road. <br /> McGrann asked why the City has typically wanted cul-de-sacs. <br /> Gaffron indicated they provide options for the future. Gaffron stated in the event the City assumes <br /> ownership of some of the private roads in the future,through streets are easier for snow plowing and <br /> maintenance. <br /> Leskinen asked if the City has had developments where it has not been practical to have a through road <br /> easement. <br /> Gaffron noted the Planning Commission looked at one earlier tonight where the connection to the Dayton <br /> property to the north was not contemplated because that property is already developed. Gaffron stated if <br /> there is additional land to be developed beyond the cul-de-sac, then it becomes more critical to look at, <br /> but in this situation, everything around the property has already been developed. Gaffron stated in that <br /> respect, it is not necessary to create that corridor. Gaffron noted the corridar was created up to a certain <br /> point with the expectation that when this properiy was developed, it could use that as a potential access <br /> point. <br /> Thiesse asked what the City can do about the fact that it would create a nonconforming lot. Thiesse stated <br /> in his view it is not the developer's obligation to give up a lot for the convenience of a future road. <br /> Thiesse stated if the developer does provide that road corridor, in his view the City should accept a lot <br /> that is less than two acres. <br /> McGrann stated in this situation it would detract having a through street in that area. McGrann stated he <br /> understands emergency vehicle needs, but given the fact that there is no additional land to develop, he <br /> would rather see a cul-de-sac. <br /> Leskinen stated she would be in agreement with that, especially since this is a low density development. <br /> Chair Leskinen opened the public hearing at 10:20 p.m. <br /> Page 33 of 53 <br />