Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL <br />MEETING HELD ON JUN*E 12,1995 <br />(#10 - #2022 Robert Melamed - Continued) <br />Mabusth said the Applicant followed the Park and Council recommendations for a 15’ <br />outlot for a future bike trail. Applicant has also dedicated remainder of required park <br />land area as an outlot at the east side of property. Land taken will be dry buildable area <br />at 62' width, for a total of 84 acres. Council must decide whether the .84 acres ofland <br />or cash payment wiU be accepted by the City for Park Dedication The Applicant would <br />prefer the option of dedicating park land with the 3.2 acres as a road outlot. The <br />Engineer has requested the bike path be graded to a 10’ width for mitigation. Cook said <br />it was difficult to make this request after the development is completed. <br />Mabusth said both the County and City Engineer have approved the access, but asked <br />that the large, old, oak tree be removed for safety reasons. <br />The Planning Commission recommended the use of the City driveway for access to lots 3 <br />and 4 but did not discuss the issue of required upgrades of the drive. Mabusth said the <br />City Attorney submitted a memo. Exhibit R, stating that the City docs have the right to <br />grant itself a variance <br />Four alternatives have been given from a range of a 24' wide road with a cul-de-sac to no <br />ma^or changes. If no additional curb cut is aUowed from the City driveway, then the lot <br />lines would have to be redrawn Mabusth said the County is encouraging the City to <br />allow the access from the City driveway as a safer option. <br />Applicant Melamed reported on his concerns. Melamed prefers an access oflf of the City <br />driveway instead of CoRd 84. A CoRd 84 access would cause the remova of more trees <br />with a cut made through the trees. It was also considered less safe with the ne^ for 2 <br />cuts on County road. Melamed asked the City to grant itself a variance in keeping with <br />the Park and Planning Commission reconunendation not to upgrade the drive to maintain <br />the nature of the presem use to the park and the residences served. <br />Melamed also did not understand the need to grade the bike trail at this time. He did not <br />feel the neighbors would want this done and questioned whether acquisition of property <br />would ever occur to complete the trail. <br />Melamed also voiced his concern with the land dedication versus a buffer zone for outlot <br />B, noting comments from the Park Commission on the difficulty in enforcing buffer zones <br />on lot owners, when the City is able to enforce such zones as the owner.