Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL <br />MEETING HELD ON MARCH 23,1998 <br />{§12 ~ #2339 James Render - Continued) <br />Cook said the ponding is being done because it is required and is impc.fant but does not <br />necessarily have to be done in this manner. There are other ways to treat the water but <br />they are more expensive. While this is not as aesthetically pleasing as it would be in a <br />rural setting, it is the kind of system necessary to protect the lake for the long term. <br />Jabbour said the ponding is then necessary. He suggested the pond be made as minimum <br />as possible to meet the code. Flint and Peterson agreed. Gaffron said he was not <br />recommending a change in the code but the need to realize the impacts of ponding. <br />Goetten said she would not support the easement for the connection of Birch Lane to <br />Tonkawa. She approved the subdivision itself but is concerned with what might happen <br />in the future if the easement was taken, jabbour agreed that the connection should not be <br />made but felt the easement should still be taken. <br />Render suggested the easement terminate 5’ from the property line. <br />Peterson said she agreed with Goetten’s comments. <br />Flint said he felt this was the opportunity to get the easement. <br />Mr. Putnam said it was upsetting that the Council may vote for an easement when they <br />do not desire the road to go through. <br />Jabbour said he supported the proposal and Staff and Planning Commission <br />recommendations. <br />Gerald Ray, 3442 North Shore Drive, opposed the Birch Lane connection. He liked <br />what the Council was saying regarding no connection, yet noted that the Council will <br />change in the future and so might the feeling regarding the connection. <br />Dave Lindberg, 3440 North Shore Drive, agreed with Ray. He does not wa.it to see the <br />easement widened. He would like to maintain the current look of the neighborhood. <br />Jabbour suggested stopping the casement as mentioned by the applicant 5* from the <br />property line. <br />Flint asked what the current use is for the easement. Jabbour said there is a private road <br />and easement on the road. There are fences and garages located on it as well.^ Flint <br />asked if the existing easement is used for any purpose. He was informed that it was a^ <br />utility easement but may not provide complete vehicular access to the sewer. Flint said <br />he would support the recommendation to stop the easement 5' from the property line. <br />Jabbour asked Staff to amend the resolution to reflect the 5' change as noted.