Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br />ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING <br />Monday, February 11, 2019 <br />7:00 o’clock p.m. <br />_____________________________________________________________________________________ <br /> <br />Page 5 of 11 <br /> <br />Seals asked if there is anything the City can do to make it clear to this developer that they need to follow <br />the rules. <br /> <br />Barnhart stated Staff has worked with the builder the last year and a half and they are a larger company. <br />In June of last year, they had some turnover with their employees that Staff has dealt with, which is why <br />sometimes it was not caught by the builder. <br /> <br />Printup noted at the Planning Commission meeting one of the residents also commented on the fact that <br />the area was not bermed as originally planned. <br /> <br />Barnhart stated no berming was planned on the south side and the proposed berming along Old Crystal <br />Bay Road was done. <br /> <br />Crosby moved, Seals seconded, to direct Staff to draft an approval resolution for Application No. <br />18-000091, AJ Helgerson, 2870 Goldenrod Way, granting of a side yard setback variance VOTE: <br />Ayes 5, Nays 0. <br /> <br />11. LA18-000095 - CHUCK ALCON ON BEHALF OF ERIC AND ANDREA LARSON, 690 <br /> BROWN ROAD, SKETCH PLAN <br /> <br />Chuck Alcon, Applicant; Michael Stedman, Developer; and Mark Gronberg, Surveyor, were present. <br /> <br />Barnhart stated this is a sketch plan review for a proposed seven lot single-family subdivision located at <br />690 Broad Road. The property consists of 24.37 aces. Each lot meets the minimum lot size of two acres <br />of dry buildable and five of the seven lots meet the minimum lot width requirements. There will be a <br />single private road off of Brown Road that would essentially line up with the Sugarwood development to <br />the west. The property is located in the MUSA. <br /> <br />The main issue for consideration is the width of two of the lots. Lot 3 is a lot at the end of a cul-de-sac <br />and the calculated width is 143 feet where 200 feet is required. Where that line is measured is right in the <br />middle of the ditch. If you measure further back, you would get 350-plus feet of distance. Lot 3 could <br />also be adjusted to accommodate the width requirements, but the lot line configuration may be unusual. <br />Lot 6 is a proposed lake lot, and based on the lot width definition, the calculated width is 185 feet. This <br />lot has over 200 feet of shoreline. In the past the City Council has supported some flexibility from lot <br />width requirements. <br /> <br />At their January meeting, the Planning Commission discussed the proposal and were generally in favor of <br />providing some lot width flexibility. <br /> <br />The City Council is being asked to provide comment related to the proposed subdivision and, in <br />particular, the width of Lots 3 and 6. <br /> <br />Walsh noted a curving shoreline is a practical difficulty and that in his view the plan is absolutely <br />fabulous. <br /> <br />Michael Stedman, Developer, stated this is a lot different from the 25 lots that were proposed in 2016 and <br />that they wanted to come up with something that meets City Code as much as possible. The proposed