Laserfiche WebLink
W04-3016 “Creekslde in Orono" <br />January 7, 200S <br />Page 8 <br />Item 1 1 ; 'I'hc 50' conservation easement witliin Lots 1 and 2 is not recordable on the plat, but will <br />be recorded as a separate document. Easement markers are required by the City and are <br />addressed as a required improvement as part of the Developers Agreement. <br />•Item 1 2: The Conservation Ea.sement pertinent to the west 50' of Lots 1 and 2, among the various <br />limitations it places on the property, prohibits any stnictures, as follows; <br />“No structures shall be constructed, erected, or placed upon, above, or beneath <br />the Land including without limitation, fences, fireplaces, steps, docks, picis, <br />hatdeover or roads of any nature whatsoever, or any other structure or <br />improvement inconsistent with the natural state of the land.” <br />-Item 1 3: City Code limits the hciglu of principal structures to 30' and 2-1/2 stories, per the Code- <br />defined hciglit measurement methods. It is entirely po.ssilrle that the peak heights of homes <br />to be constructed on the site could be as high as 45' l above the walkout floor elevation <br />while still meeting the City’s height ordinances. This is not aty|hcal of residential <br />construction today. Such homes are unlikely to extend above the tree canopy of the <br />general area; however, any new plantings in the private road boulevard or within the west <br />50' of I.x)ls 1 and 2, will not provide substantial screening for a number of years. C'ity cmle <br />does not require screening of homes from other homes. Council should consuler w helhcr <br />there is any legitimate need to ‘ lessen the visual impact’ by ralucingheight allowances as <br />requested by the neighbor. <br />-Item 14: While no negative impacts to the neighboring property are anticipated based on the <br />proposed grading plan (subject to any revisions suggested by the City lingineer), if such <br />impacts occur, the neiglikirs have pre.sumably not given up any rights to legally pursue the <br />developer. Hiis request that the City require tliat the neigliborbc satisfied by the developer, <br />should be further addressed by the City Attorney. <br />•Item 15: City Attorney should address this. The Developers response is leasmiable. <br />-Item 16: City Attorney should address this. It would be highly unusual for the Developers <br />Agreement to be enforceable by an adjoining property owner. <br />Regarding Mr. Coleman’s additional 5 points: <br />Point 1 : Any further development of the property will be subject to the nomial public review- <br />process. The conditions imposed on this de\ elopment by City Oriliiuuices .uul by ph\ sical <br />factors unique to the site, make further de\ elopment highly unlikely.