06-24-1996 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON JUNE 10,1996 (#6 - #2136 Greenfield Corporation - Continued) Kelley commented that technically, the subdivision could meet standards but was now dealing v.ith aituie development and safety issues Mabusth responded that the Planning Commission was concerned with the internal road and saving the view. To maintain the best sites, the Planning Commission recommended approv al of the internal road and lot width variances. Goetten «3id she disagrees vith this assessment and sees it as an attempt to gain 6 lots. Mabusth said Planning Commission members were concerned for lot 4 w ith its limitations such as septic sites, type ! wetlands, and need for a retention pond to treat runoff from new road bed Mabusth said it was questioned w hether there was adequate room for a rural residential building site. Gronberg said there is adequate room for a building site and was conscious of protecting the wildlife area. Mabusth commented that the Planning Commission was also concerned with protecting the alternate sites with the long lots and specified need for protective covenants to protect alternate sites Kelley inquired why the primary sites are not located farther down the lots and the alternates up near the building sites. Gronberg said it was just a matter of a longer way to go. Kelley said if the primary fails, the water would seep down to the alternate sites. Gaffron said if the initial systems fail, they would be turned off and would have to wait to be built He continued that when the first sites are done, care would be taken not to ruin the second .ites Callahan noted that all septic sites seem to be near to the protective wetland areas He did not suggest changing the sites but questioned how protected the wetlands would be. Gronberg said the land rises 12' from the pond and does not anticipate the systems failing Council debated whether the proposal was the best use of the property, the highest use, or the most intensive use, and what could be done if all standards were met. Kelley requested that the application be tabled, reconfigured with the cul-de-sac moved downward and outlot A eliminated, and new sketches be brought back to the Council. It was noted that the Planning Commission approved the application in its current form. Hurr moved, Kelley seconded, to table Application #2136 to allow the applicant to consider the direction given by the Council and present these changes to the Council at their next meeting Callahan asked Goetten what suggestions she might have Goetten asked for fewer lots noting her concern over access and drainfields. Goetten did comment that the proposed change by Cook was an improvement but would deny the application at this point Callahan said he shared the same concerns to some point. Goetten said this w ould allow the opportunities for changes to be made depending on the majority opinion.