My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
05-15-1995 Planning Commission Minutes
Orono
>
Agendas, Minutes & Packets
>
Planning Commission
>
Minutes
>
1990-1999
>
1995
>
05-15-1995 Planning Commission Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/10/2019 1:47:44 PM
Creation date
7/10/2019 1:47:43 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
20
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).
View images
View plain text
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION <br />MEETING HELD ON MAY 15, 1995 <br />(93 - #2022 Robert Melamed - Continued) <br />The Applicant is desiring to keep away from the wetland areas which would require <br />removal of 650' trees and excessive filling within wetlands. A permit is automatically <br />granted by the MCWD if the wetland filling does not exceed 400'. The MCWD will <br />review grading plans. No mitigation is needed but Applicant does plan to dredge wetlands <br />in the future. Melamed would like to create a ponding area and deepen another pond. He <br />advised that he received positive feedback on this from the MCWD. Mabusth said that <br />this would be considered a major application involving a conditional use permit and <br />variance. Mabusth asked Applicant the purpose of the alteration. Melamed said this <br />would increase the wildlife areas and general aesthetic purposes, and to replace what has <br />been destroyed in the past. It was noted that this is part of the general plan and not a part <br />of the current review. <br />The Applicant reported that after discussions with the Council, Park Commission, and <br />Planning Commission, a 15' outlot is requested at the west lot line adjacent to county road <br />for a bike trail and would be part of the park dedication. Melamed noted that the Park <br />Commission was concerned with buffering the City preserve area on the east side from <br />this property. A decision is needed on whether this should be dedicated on fee title as <br />park dedication land or protected on private covenants. Melamed noted the Park <br />• Commission preferred a park dedication, while the Council was in favor of a buffer zone <br />as it was felt that better control was afforded if City owned land rather than controlled as <br />in covenants. <br />The driveway on the south side needs to be decided. If no internal road is built, then two - <br />shared driveways are currently proposed, one off county road and one off City driveway. <br />The question of whether the City desires to grant itself a variance or upgrade the drive to <br />a City road needs to be decided upon. The upgrade would require a cul -de -sac, which <br />Melamed said the neighbors do not want. Melamed said the Park Commission felt the <br />area would not be enhanced by an upgrade. The Council is uncomfortable with granting a <br />variance and is possibly looking at amending the code on the number of residences <br />allowed to be served by a driveway. The Applicant prefers that a variance be given. <br />Peterson read into the record a letter from Frances Graham and Robert Gumnit voicing <br />their desire that the City grant itself a variance. Graham and Gumnit also asked that the <br />developer not be allowed to use the word "preserve" in its name as they felt it was <br />confusing and potentially misleading. They asked that trees and wetlands be maintained. <br />During public comments, Mike Ellis, who lives next door to the property on the south, <br />voiced his disapproval of bike trails on the property. Ellis asked how the creek would be <br />crossed serving lot 4, and Melamed replied that a concrete culvert would be installed. <br />Ellis objected strongly to the proposed Willow Drive to Brown Road trail. <br />• <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.