My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
09-28-2009 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
1950-2024
>
2000-2009
>
2009
>
09-28-2009 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/8/2015 11:10:59 AM
Creation date
4/8/2015 2:11:14 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
32
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, September 14, 2009 <br />7:00 o’clock p.m. <br /> <br /> Page 5 of 8 <br /> <br />(7. JOHN BROOKS, 905 FERNDALE ROAD WEST – FENCE IN RIGHT-OF-WAY, Continued) <br /> <br />MnDOT does not provide guidance on roadways with speeds under 40 miles per hour. Ferndale Road <br />West is a 30 mile per hour roadway. An interpretation of MnDOT’s clear zone requirements could <br />require the clear zone to be as much as 15 feet from the pavement depending on the amount of traffic, <br />ditch slope, and road curvature. Public Works has indicated that a clear zone of 10 feet would be <br />necessary for snow storage purposes but this does not address additional clear zone safety requirements. <br />Normally the City would require an encroachment agreement to allow a structure in the right-of-way. <br />Such an agreement would be appropriate in this situation if the Council approves a fence in the right-of- <br />way. Other factors that the Council may wish to consider include the location of the fence near a wetland <br />and lake views being impeded by travelers along Ferndale Road West. <br /> <br />Murphy noted he did visit the site and that this situation is challenging given the topography. The new <br />fence is attractive but that given the topography, a number of very mature trees would need to be <br />removed, which is an issue. Another issue is the 8-foot height of the proposed fence and the different <br />setback. <br /> <br />Brooks indicated the design of the fence is preliminary and is too costly and too much for the site. <br />Brooks stated he decided rather than redesign the fence, he would approach the Council to see what type <br />of fence would be allowed and whether the setback could be changed. <br /> <br />Brooks distributed pictures to the Council depicting different fences located on approximately 11 <br />properties as well as his current fence. <br /> <br />The Council reviewed the pictures. <br /> <br />Murphy commented he would like to see the fence improved. <br /> <br />Near indicated he did discuss with Planner Curtis what would be allowed on this property and that these <br />are preliminary plans for the fence. <br /> <br />Brooks stated he would like part of the plan to also include a gate or a way to provide security to the main <br />driveway as well as the driveway to the boathouse. <br /> <br />White recommended the gate be far enough back to allow for parking. <br /> <br />Bremer commented she also would like to see the current fence improved and that she is in favor of the <br />10-foot setback suggested by the Public Works Department. <br /> <br />Mattick stated there are two concerns Mr. Brooks should take into consideration, and one is the recovery <br />area and potential damage if a vehicle goes off the road. The second concern is that if the fence is located <br />in the right-of-way and work needs to be done within the right-of-way, Mr. Brooks would be required to <br />move the fence at his own expense. <br /> <br />McMillan asked whether having a monument located in the right-of-way would be precedent setting. <br /> <br />Mattick indicated if the Council does allow 10 feet, it likely would become the standard. <br /> <br />Item #02 - CC Agenda - 09/28/09 <br />Approval of Council Minutes 09/14/09 [Page 5 of 8]
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.