Laserfiche WebLink
Metadata
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015 Laserfiche. All rights reserved.
MINUTES OF THE <br />ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING <br />Monday, November 23, 2015 <br />7:00 o’clock p.m. <br />_____________________________________________________________________________________ <br /> <br />Page 13 of 41 <br /> <br />why they are not addressing it now. Brynes stated he is confused why the City is not now reaching out <br />and speaking directly to these agencies to make sure these permits will be granted. <br /> <br />Brynes stated their engineer reached out again today to the MCWD and the City on those issues and he <br />still has not gotten a response from the City. Brynes stated there has never been a request to the MCWD <br />for review of the application and that it is not clear whether the MCWD will approve this. Brynes <br />questioned why the City is rushing to judgment to approve this without their input and all the facts have <br />not been evaluated. <br /> <br />McMillan requested Staff address the issue raised about the MCWD. <br /> <br />Gaffron noted there has been discussion between the applicants and the Watershed District. Staff has <br />copies of those e-mails that have gone back and forth. In addition, the Watershed District typically does <br />not want to get deep into a review process until there is preliminary plat approval because they do not like <br />to do their work twice. All the preliminary discussions that have occurred to date suggest that the <br />MCWD is not going to have an issue with this subdivision. Gaffron noted most of the things that the <br />residents’ engineer put forward are things that are done at a final plat stage. <br /> <br />Brynes stated he understands that, but once the genie is out of the bottle, it cannot be put back in. Brynes <br />stated there is a line that needs to be drawn here in understanding what the issues are, especially given the <br />size of the homes. Brynes stated these are major homes going into one of the last Big Woods stand left <br />on the lake and that this is about going above and beyond the minimum to ensure the City does the right <br />thing. The MCWD has reached out and offered to take this one but they have not received any response <br />from the City upon the MCWD’s inquiry. <br /> <br />As it relates to the tree survey, Brynes stated this is a minor issue, but the misdirection is when they talk <br />about the specific issues that need to be raised, there are additional trees that need to be removed around <br />the retaining wall. Brynes stated in their opinion, as the retaining wall is built, there will be additional <br />trees that will have to be removed, and there has been no response that addresses that issue. On multiple <br />occasions the questions of the residents’ engineer have not been responded to. Brynes stated there is still <br />the open issue of whether additional trees will need to be removed as a result of the retaining walls. <br /> <br />Brynes stated when they talk about alternative access, he again goes back to the requirement of the <br />Planning Commission to seek an alternative access to the site, which has not been properly evaluated. <br />Brynes stated what is stunning is the response that contractors would have to come through the Jacobs’ <br />property, which would cause incredible disruption to his guests and delivery vehicles, and is using the <br />same argument that the residents are using. Brynes stated when they talk about the needs of many versus <br />the needs of one, the burden continues to fall onto the 48 neighbors of Foxhill that will have to deal with <br />it every single day. Brynes stated the applicant’s argument that Mr. Jacobs would not be able to access <br />his house is nothing but over the top since that is the same issue they have been talking about. <br /> <br />Brynes stated when he thinks about the idea of a master plan, this is an enormously important piece of <br />land, and in the applicant’s own words, the sketches for the property have always had an extension of <br />Heritage Lane. Brynes stated after two years of discussion, his question is why has not the question of <br />alternative access been evaluated. Brynes stated that is part of what a master plan is all about and the City <br />should be considering the long-term development of Lot 4 and how it will access Smiths Bay. Brynes <br />stated the City should be finding out the answers to these questions before giving approval. <br />