My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
08-10-2015 Council Minutes
Orono
>
City Council
>
Minutes
>
2010-2019
>
2015
>
08-10-2015 Council Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/1/2015 9:52:36 AM
Creation date
10/1/2015 9:51:31 AM
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, August 10, 2015 <br />7:00 o'clock pm. <br />7. #15-3763 CHRISTOPHER W. BOLLIS, 200-350 STUBBS BAY ROAD NORTH — <br />PRELIlI1IINARY PLAT {continued} <br />Gaffron stated that is correct and that it is his understanding it is an independently owned property and the <br />corridor serves as a driveway to the existing house. <br />Christopher Bollis, Applicant, stated that is correct. <br />Gaffron stated if the house is either maintained as it is or replaced with a new house and there is an intent <br />to have a driveway coming down to the new cul-de-sac, the question becomes whether there is a need to <br />have a secondary driveway. If not, that driveway can be removed and there can be some wetland <br />rehabilitation. At this time Staff is not aware of what will happen in that area. <br />Gaffron stated one of the key issues for the neighborhood has been an agreement for future maintenance <br />of the joint road. It is the intent at the present time for it to be a private road serving 13 units. The road <br />currently serves six units. Gaffron stated it is his understanding the developer of Kintyre Two and Mr. <br />Bollis have been in a number of discussions and that the applicant will need to address that. <br />The City Council should address the following: <br />1. Does the City Council have any concerns regarding the proposed road width, length and design? <br />2. Does the City Council have any concerns about the lot width variances for Lots 4, 5, or 6? <br />3. Should the City consider allowing septic system drain fields within MCWD required buffers as <br />long as a 50 -foot setback is met? What are the downsides of such a code change? Or should the <br />applicant be required to locate drain fields to meet the 85 -foot wetland setback where required? <br />4. Is the landscape plan acceptable as presented? <br />5. The council should review the Conservation Design materials in the Planning Commission packet <br />and determine whether there are any potential concerns. <br />6. What is the status of negotiations between MacKinnon and Bollis regarding the necessary road <br />agreements? Will Council grant preliminary plat approval without a road agreement in place? <br />Gaffron stated if the Council finds the conditions and proposals acceptable, Staff would then bring back a <br />resolution for approval. <br />McMillan stated she will allow public comment after the Council has discussed some of the issues. <br />Printup indicated he is okay with the road design as it is laid out as well as the 24 -foot width. <br />Levang stated she is okay with the 24 -foot width and that it makes sense to match up the width of the two <br />roads. Levang asked how many homes will come off the cul-de-sac. <br />Bollis stated Lots 4, 5, and 6 would have their driveways off the cul-de-sac and Lot 7 would have its <br />driveway off the road. <br />Page 21 of 32 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.