Laserfiche WebLink
I <br />MINUTES OF THE <br />ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING <br />Monday,June 20,2016 <br />6:30 o'clock p.m. <br />Schoenzeit noted that existing Kintyre Lane would not change in dimension. <br />Lemke asked how long the cul-de-sac would be under staff's proposed sketch.. <br />Gaffron indicated the southerly cul-de-sac would extend Kintyre Lane over the 1000-foot maximum but <br />not nearly the 1500-foot length approved previously. <br />Lemke asked if the applicant could use the same layout they had proposed previously with the one cul-de- <br />sac and eliminate the access off of Stubbs Bay. <br />Gaffron stated they could by extending the road up to the point where all five lots abut the cul-de-sac. As <br />a result, none of those lots would be considered as back lots but it would require some shifting of lot <br />lines. <br />Leskinen asked if it would still be possible to realize the objective of the applicant to bypass the trees by <br />doing that. <br />Gaffron stated revising the location could result in eliminating some of the trees. <br />Thiesse noted the majority of the trees are 20-year-old evergreens. Thiesse asked what the intent of the <br />back lot ordinance is. <br />Gaffron stated when a back lot is created,the normal situation is that there is a front lot that abuts the one <br />lot behind it. If there is a long, narrow piece of property that does not lend itself to being split side by <br />side but does lend itself to being split front to back, rather than create a flag lot, a 30-foot outlot is created <br />that goes up the side,which ends at the back lot. The issue with back lots is the ability for emergency <br />vehicles to access that lot. The impact on the back lot would be greater setback requirements. The front <br />lot is normally required to access from the outlot. <br />Thiesse asked if the applicant could include the dry buildable out of Outlot A. <br />Gaffron indicated the applicant could move some lot lines around. <br />Schoenzeit asked why the applicant cou(d not reverse the cul-de-sac and then not go through the tree <br />stand, but come in from Stubbs Bay Road. <br />Gaffron stated there is no obvious reason why it could not come in off of Stubbs Bay Road and that is <br />something the applicant would need to address. <br />Christopher Bollis, 350 Stubbs Bay Road, stated their intent with this plan was to come up with <br />something that is more environmentally friendly by not crossing the wetlands and preserving the trees and <br />open space. Bollis noted the changes do not necessarily meet the Conservation Design Code but that they <br />were attempting to save the trees. If the cul-de-sac is done with a 50-foot corridor, most of the trees will <br />be gone and there will be a wetland that would need to be mitigated. <br />Schoenzeit stated the app(icant will need to do it with a standard road width and not with outlots. <br />Page 3 --_._