My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
05-08-1995 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
1995
>
05-08-1995 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/6/2023 9:51:10 AM
Creation date
10/6/2023 9:48:35 AM
Metadata
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
283
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
? \C.t^ <br />ORONO PARK COMMISSION MEETING <br />MINUTES FOR APRIL 4, 1995 <br />(#2) Discussion of Proposed Development near French Creek Preserve <br />Bob Melamed was present. He handed out 2 sketch plans, Plan A is <br />offering a buffer area where no trees could be removed within 30' <br />to 50' around the entire property boundaries, plus an 8% cash Park <br />Dedication fee. Plan 3, is to donate 1.23^, acres of land on Lot 4, <br />adiacent to the French Creek Par.k Reserve. <br />Flint asked for the buffer dimensions on Sketch A. <br />.Melamed stated it is 50' on t.he east. There is not much on the <br />north because there is not much vegetation there. The owner of <br />Lot 1 and Art Ellis are going to want more privacy from each other <br />and we are going to have to do some more screening. What I'm <br />trying to do for the people who are living there, is feel like the <br />home is not out in the o'pen to Old Crystal Bay Road. <br />Flint summarized Melamed, saying that on the east it would be 50' <br />easement, on the north it would be 30' easement, on the south it <br />would be a 50' easement and basically 50' on the west except on the <br />west it gets wider as you get north of Lot 2 and 3. <br />Melamed agreed. <br />Flint asked Mabusth, it was true that the envelope around the <br />property would be required irrespective of Park Commission <br />consideration. Mabusth stated that the City is granting this <br />developer, if it goes with Plan A, a variance to the subdivision <br />regulations because the regulations require an internal road, with <br />one curb cut so as to serve all 4 lots. The Planning Commission <br />has accepted this property as unique and need to be addressed for <br />its special consideration so they are willing to grant the <br />variance. But in return for the variance, the City wants to be <br />assured that the trees would be protected and not only would we <br />be looking for exterior buffers, we would probably look for <br />buffers a^ong the lot lines, something similar to Sugarwood, where <br />the whole point was to preserve the trees. The City would require <br />preservation of the trees notwithstanding Park Commissions <br />consideration, but additional limitations such as prohibition of <br />along the buffer might be imposed because of Park Commission <br />considerations. <br />Flint questioned the city road entering the preserve, being <br />improved as normally would be required by the addition of even one <br />driveway.
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.