08-10-2015 Council Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, August 10, 2015 7:00 o'clock Pm. 7. #15-3763 CHRISTOPHER W. BOLLIS, 200-350 STUBBS BAY ROAD NORTH — PRELIMINARY PLAT (continued) Gaffron stated not to his knowledge outside of Weir Lane. The City has platted many corridors for connections such as this but they have never been built. Walsh asked if the City is contemplating the possibility of telling Kintyre Two that they have to change the road or whether that is something that is totally up to them. Gaffron stated he would ask the engineers to discuss it but that to his understanding there are ways to leave the cul-de-sac as is without causing a problem. Walsh asked if the City can require the original Kintyre development to change the road. Mattick stated he has not reviewed the Kintyre documents in a while, but the general answer would be that the City required a through street to be platted for future development at some point. In the past the City has done a separate outlot, which makes it easy to vacate, but that was not done in this situation. Walsh asked if the City can require the initial Kintyre developer to vacate that portion. Mattick stated he would be inclined to say no. Bollis stated the neighboring property, Graham Hill, has a similar double cul-de-sac in it but it is just offset a little bit more. Bollis stated that is a pretty seamless road and is not very noticeable. Bollis stated as the developer of this property and speaking for the future property owners to the north, he would be in favor of letting the Kintyre residents decide what to do with the cul-de-sac as long as it does not impede access to this development. McMillan asked if Staff would like to see the road maintenance agreement before final plat. Mattick stated Staff has indicated it would be nice to have one. At this point in time Staffs direction has been to have the two developers work it out. Mattick stated he is aware there have been some stumbling blocks and that there is not one in place at this point, but it is the City's hope that one would be in place prior to final plat. McMillan asked if anyone on the Council has any issues with the lot width variances. It was the general consensus of the City Council that they are okay with the lot width variances for Lots 4, 5, and 6. McMillan asked if the City Council is okay with some of the drain fields being located within the 50 -foot setback. McMillan noted there are a couple that appear to be within the 75 -foot setback. Gaffron stated every septic site meets the 50 -foot setback but not the 75 -foot buffer. The 75 -foot buffer requirements results in a number of primary and alternate sites being within the buffer. Gaffron stated the portion within the buffer area is likely just the drain field portion. The Watershed District recommends it not be located within the buffer but does not prohibit it. Staff would suggest the developer explore buffer averaging with the Watershed District. Page 13 of 32