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 16 of 41 <br /> <br />two bluffs and a valley through them, which was never presented to the residents. Coward stated even as <br />of today, that road exists through the valley. Mr. Steadman spoke about runoff from that. Coward stated <br />if there is a road today, there is runoff from that, and that perhaps the road could be fixed somewhat. <br />Coward stated it is not as though it is impossible but it probably has not been reviewed enough. <br /> <br />Coward asked whether they know that the cul-de-sac has to be in the place being proposed by the <br />applicant. If an alternative road is done, can that same cul-de-sac be in a different location and not be <br />1,750 feet long. Coward stated he has not heard any discussion about that. <br /> <br />McMillan stated the City Council did discuss eliminating one of the cul-de-sacs but that it was <br />determined it would be required. McMillan noted the City has approved a number of variances for longer <br />cul-de-sacs in the past. Generally when a cul-de-sac is built, the City wants it to be a private road and it is <br />maintained and plowed by the residents who live on the road. The City will allow longer cul-de-sacs <br />because they are privately owned. McMillan noted no precedent would be set by granting the variance <br />and that the City Council has actually talked about changing the code to allow longer cul-de-sacs since <br />variances are typically granted. <br /> <br />Coward stated in either case there is going to be a variance and that the choice is between having a <br />cul-de-sac that is 1,600 feet long or 1,750 feet long. Coward stated he is saying that has not been <br />addressed, which is another example of an alternative that has not been addressed. <br /> <br />McMillan asked if he is talking about a permanent road or a temporary alternative access road. <br /> <br />Coward stated it could be one for construction or permanent access. <br /> <br />Levang suggested the applicant address the issues that were raised by the residents. <br /> <br />Gronberg stated as it relates to sewer hookup, Lot 4 would be connected up at the time the system <br />becomes operational so there would be no impact on an existing drainage system. Gronberg stated they <br />will be using drainage walls to keep within the grading limits as much as possible to limit the impact to <br />the trees. <br /> <br />McMillan asked if there will be any tree loss on the neighboring property. <br /> <br />Gronberg stated they would like to keep the tree removal to a minimum. <br /> <br />McMillan noted there are some large trees on the neighboring property. <br />Gronberg stated there are some in the corridor and on the neighboring property. <br /> <br />McMillan stated there should probably be a replacement plan if something happens to those trees. <br /> <br />Steadman indicated they are agreeable to that. <br /> <br />McMillan asked at what point the City should see that plan for landscaping in the corridor. <br /> <br />Gaffron stated Staff would like to see it prior to final plat. <br /> <br />Gronberg noted that was discussed in a meeting with Staff.