My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
08-24-2015 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
2015
>
08-24-2015 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/1/2015 11:19:11 AM
Creation date
10/1/2015 11:17:23 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
102
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 />_____________________________________________________________________________________ <br /> <br />Page 15 of 32 <br /> <br />7. #15-3763 CHRISTOPHER W. BOLLIS, 200-350 STUBBS BAY ROAD NORTH – <br />PRELIMINARY PLAT (continued) <br /> <br />McMillan pointed out this is a managed wetland, which is a high quality, healthy wetland, which requires <br />a bigger buffer. McMillan stated there are not a lot of 75-foot buffers that are required and that the City’s <br />Code says 50 feet. McMillan stated the City could grant certain waivers for certain lots but still require <br />the 50-foot buffers. McMillan stated in her view it is something the City should take very seriously and <br />that the Watershed District has analyzed every single wetland in the City and requires different <br />qualifications and classifications depending on the type of wetland it is. McMillan stated the City could <br />grant a variance to allow septic systems within the 75-foot buffer. <br /> <br />Rusty Olson noted the buffer is there to prevent the wetland from runoff. The mound system will have <br />vegetation over it so there will not be runoff like a hard surface where there is 100 percent runoff towards <br />the wetland. <br /> <br />McMillan stated the wastewater would go straight down and not run into the wetland. McMillan stated a <br />variance would be one way of dealing with that situation. <br /> <br />McMillan asked if the City Council has any concerns about the landscape plan. McMillan stated she is <br />fine with it. <br /> <br />Printup indicated he is fine with it. <br /> <br />Walsh noted Outlot A has approximately 2,000 trees in it. <br /> <br />Bollis stated they are proposing 40 new development trees along with a total of 21 owner trees, which <br />would put them at a total of 61 developer trees. City Code only calls for 13.75 trees. Bollis stated they <br />chose to lay the trees out in a way that would buffer the homes more rather than simply along the <br />boulevard. <br /> <br />Walsh stated he would like to hear what the neighbors have to say about the trees. <br /> <br />Levang noted there are some trees along the road as well as along the lot lines. Levang asked if Outlot A <br />would look the same from the road. Levang stated it appears from the plan that Outlot A is bare along the <br />road, which is not correct. <br /> <br />Bollis stated Outlot A has quite a few trees and that there are trees that abut the road. <br /> <br />Levang stated she likes the trees along the lot lines to provide more privacy for the lots, which is <br />something the City has not required before. <br /> <br />Gaffron pointed out the existing cul-de-sac and the proposed extension of the road. <br /> <br />Bollis stated those trees would stay and that they will be avoiding the two clumps of trees. Bollis stated <br />his belief is that they will only lose 15 trees for the road and that there will be a net gain of 46 trees on the <br />whole development. <br /> <br />Levang asked if the trees are being positioned to protect the building sites.
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.