03-09-1998 Council Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON MARCH 9, 1998 • ( #10 - #2339 James Render - Continued) Kelley disagreed with Jabbour. He felt it was appropriate to have a cul -de -sac with a 28' wide road. Kelley said the lots will be restricted in hardcover and no parking will be available for these homes with a small narrow driveway. A 28' road with cul -de -sac would enable more cars to park and enable fire trucks to better access the properties if need be. Kelley noted that roads also become narrower in the winter months with snow storage. Jabbour did not support giving credit for hardcover for the road easement as it would set a precedent. Goetten agreed. Jabbour asked if the NURP pond was considered hardcover. Gaffron said it was not allowable towards the defined lot area, but he noted hardcover credit has normally been given for wetlands in the past, and logic would support giving hardcover credit for a pond as it is similar to wetlands. Goetten is concerned with having a snowball effect with a 28' road, cul -de -sac, and a future connection of Birch Lane to Tonkawa. She feels the connection is not necessary and would impact the neighbors. She felt the connection road would be used by drivers to by -pass major roads even if it is a private road. She reiterated she would not support • giving credit for hardcover for the road easement. Goetten felt a large cul -de -sac for three lots was more than necessary. She felt the T would be sufficient if it adequately provided for the fire department needs. Goetten indicated she also supports the need for the NURP pond. Jabbour polled the Council. He noted that if the cul -de -sac was eliminated, a reason would have to be established as the code calls for the cul -de -sac. He noted this has been a concern in other small subdivisions in the last few years. Gaffron indicated that there are many rural 3 -lot subdivisions with cut -de -sacs. Gaffron cited examples of where cul- de -sacs were and were not used. Goetten indicated that the need for cul -de -sacs has been reviewed case by case. Jabbour indicated that if the Council agrees with a hammerhead style, they would then be agreeing that it is a suitable substitute. Moorse noted that the requirement for a cul -de -sac is to enable a fire truck to turnaround. He said that with smaller lots trucks do not have to go as far into the property, and this can be used as a reason for a T versus a cul -de -sac. He noted the fire chief indicated that a T is adequate but not as easy for the trucks to maneuver. Moorse suggested reviewing the length of the road may be a consideration on whether a cul -de- sac should be required. 11