Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br />ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING <br />Monday, November 23, 2015 <br />7:00 o’clock p.m. <br />_____________________________________________________________________________________ <br /> <br />Page 12 of 41 <br /> <br />ask the City Council to approve the proposed resolution with the additional condition that Mr. Steadman <br />stated earlier and the additional condition of the speed bumps if the Council so chooses. <br /> <br />Printup stated he is just trying to think of the bus routes in relation to the construction traffic. Printup <br />noted he had suggested 9:00 to 2:00 earlier and that Mr. Steadman felt that was too restrictive. Printup <br />asked if he would be okay with 8:30 to 4:00. <br /> <br />Steadman stated he would be open to that. <br /> <br />Levang asked if Saturdays are off the table. <br /> <br />Walsh noted Mr. Steadman had indicated he would be open to that. <br /> <br />Levang stated the Council would need consensus on those two points and that there should be some <br />discussion on it. <br /> <br />McMillan noted there has been quite a bit of discussion on this application in the past, as well as two <br />weeks ago, and that she would ask the public to comment on something that has not been said before. <br />McMillan stated in her view the Council would like to make a decision on this tonight but that she would <br />open the meeting up for any kind of response that did not happen two weeks ago. <br /> <br />Steven Brynes, 1025 Heritage Lane, stated he is not an engineer and not a lawyer, but a person who loves <br />his neighborhood and the land. The homeowners association has never been in opposition to Mr. Jacobs’ <br />right to develop his land, but in the original Planning Commission requirement, Item No. 3 asks if any <br />alterative feasible route has been evaluated. Brynes stated there has been some wonderful prose from the <br />developer’s experts who continue to talk about how they should be allowed to bring the traffic in the way <br />they are proposing but that he does not believe the fundamental question from the Planning Commission <br />has been addressed. <br /> <br />Brynes stated in regard to the specific comments from the letter submitted by Mr. Erickson, there are still <br />gaps in what Mr. Gronberg has been reporting back to the City Council that bear some further discussion. <br />Brynes stated as they talk about the cul-de-sac variance, it is his understanding a variance is required to <br />proceed. <br /> <br />Gaffron stated that has never been a question. <br /> <br />Mattick noted that is something that happens at final plat. <br /> <br />Brynes stated if the variance is intended to be granted, given the number of houses that would be added to <br />the extension, Staff’s report states it would result in a minimal safety issue and that therefore the variance <br />should be granted. Brynes stated in his confused mind, he would argue that by the City’s own argument, <br />creating a road that goes from Shoreline to access these properties is no different than granting a variance <br />from Heritage and that there would only be four houses accessing that road. Brynes stated by the City’s <br />own argument, that alternative road would be even safer than extending Heritage Lane. Brynes stated to <br />his knowledge that question has not been fully addressed to satisfy the issue. <br /> <br />Items 3 and 4 are in regard to impervious surface. Brynes stated given the visibility, when he hears the <br />respondent say that they understand the issue and they will address them later, it raises the question of