Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION <br />MEETING HLi-D ON MAY 15, 1995 <br />(#3 • #2022 Robert Metuned - Continued) <br />The Applicint is desiring to keep iwsy front the wetlend sms which would require <br />removil of650' trees Slid excessive fUIii^ within wetlands. A permit is automatically <br />gramed by the MCWD if the wetland filling does not exceed 400*. The MCWD will <br />review grading plans. No mitigation is needed but Applicant does plan to dredge wetlands <br />inthefiiture Melamed would like to create a ponding area and deepen another pond. He <br />advised that he received positive feedback on this fiom the MCWD. Mabusth said that <br />this would be considered a major application involving a conditional use permit and <br />variance. Mabusth asked Applicant the purpose of the alteration. Melamed said thb <br />would '"**^*^ the wildlife areas and general aesthetic purposes, and to replace what has <br />been destroyed in the past. It was noted that this is part of the general plan and not a part <br />of the current review. <br />The Applicant reported that after discussions with the Council, Park Commission, and <br />Planning Commission, a 15 ’ outlot is requested at the west lot line adjacent to county road <br />fof s trail and would be part of the park dedication. Meiamed nottd that the Park <br />Commisskm was concerned with buffering the City preserve area on the east side from <br />this property. A decision is needed on whether this should be dedicated on fee title as <br />park dedication land or protected on private covenants. Melamed noted ^ Park <br />Commission preferred a park dedication, while the Council was in ftvor of a buffer zone <br />as it was fidt that better control was afforded if City owned land rather than controlled as <br />incovenaitts. <br />The driveway on the south side needs to be decided. If no internal road is built, t^ two- <br />shared driveways are currently proposed, one off county road and one off City driv^y. <br />The quesdon of whether the City desires to grant itself a variance or upgrade the drive to <br />a City road needs to be decided upon. The upgrade would require a cut-de-sac, which <br />I^^lamed said the neighbors do not want. Melamed said the Park Commisaion felt the <br />area would not be enhanced by an upgrade. The Council is uncomfortable wth granting a <br />variance and is possibly looking at amending the code on the number of residences <br />allowed to be served by a driveway. The Applicant prefers that a variance be given. <br />Peterson read into the record a letter from Frances Graham and Robert Gumiut voicing <br />their desire that the City gram itself a variance. Graham and Gumnit also asked that the <br />developer not be allowed to use the word "preserve" in its nanw as they felt it was <br />confusing and potentially misleading. They asked that trees and wetlands be maintained. <br />During public comments, Mike Ellis, who lives next door to the property on the south, <br />voiced his disapproval of bike trails on the property. Ellis asked how the creek would be <br />crossed serving lot 4, and Melamed replied that a concrete culvert would be installed. <br />Ellis objected strongly to the proposed Willow Drive to Brown Road trail.