My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
04-13-1998 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
1998
>
04-13-1998 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/5/2024 1:54:18 PM
Creation date
6/5/2024 1:50:01 PM
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.
/
354
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 REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL <br />MEETING HELD ON MARCH 23. 1998 <br />(#13 - Daniel Anderson - Contimied) <br />Goetten asked Gaffron whether he had any idea regarding Met Council's position <br />resardinu develooinc with 2 acre density on the lake She asked Council if the extent o <br />any proposed MUSA change should be expanded. Jabbour said yes, noting if more was <br />added to the amendment request, it would take the emphasis from this development. <br />Gaffron warned that Met Council might view this differently if it is expanded from a <br />minor to a maicr change. <br />Gaffron asked for Council’s comments regarding the granting of a lot width vanancc for <br />Lot 7. Jabbour said he would support it with the lot area being met and using the <br />reasoning of stormwater ponding. <br />Jabbour noted the developer's cooperation regarding the conservation easement. <br />Discussion has been held on where the easement should end. Jabbour preferred it end m <br />the naturally mowed area, but Anderson would like to see it stop at the field road w ere <br />it creates a natural boundan^ on Lot 6. This area is heavilv bushed and contains alot of <br />scruff Anderson believes trees 6" and larger should remain. Anderson said the <br />conservation easement could be below the road about 8' from the crest of the bluff. <br />Anderson would like to protect the area coming up from the lake but the ability to clean <br />up the area around the road. <br />Flint voiced concern with runoff and erosion from the road area if no protection. Lots 4 <br />and 5 are fairly groomed and the applicant would like to be able to mow around that area. <br />Jabbour said the area is beyond the 75 ’ setback and the code does not provide for any <br />protection of the trees. Gaffron said it would be helpful to stake out the 75 setback. <br />Jabbour asked if conceptual approval can be done without this issue worked out. <br />Gaffron said Mav 23 is the deadline for preliminary plat approval. <br />Otto said he felt there was a good compromise with keeping the lakeside area along the <br />bluff as conservation easement with the area above the road being outside of the <br />restricted area. Flint said he agreed as far as the strict conservation easement but thought <br />nothing was going to be touched in the area. He is concerned that runoff would re^lt <br />from the mowing. He questioned ho\v to protect the low level plantings on the bluff <br />without total restriction. Jabbour said that issue could be resolved as a ftinctional p^ of <br />the building permit. Flint said this afiecto the developer and not the homeowner The <br />conservation easement would atfect the homeowner.
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.