Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br /> Monday,May 18,2015 <br /> 6:30 o'clock p.m. <br /> prairie. Thiesse stated he can live with that if the prairie is truly being protected, but right now no one is <br /> telling him that the prairie is being protected. <br /> Stickney stated he will continue to maintain it and preserve it but that is all he can tell them. <br /> Schoenzeit moved to table Application No. 15-3739,BPS Properties, LLC,300 Sixth Avenue North, <br /> with the applicant being requested to introduce more formal language in covenants or easements <br /> for the non-buildable areas; provide more clarity on the state of the prairie and how that could be <br /> part of the conservation plan of this entire project; identify specific building zones within certain <br /> wood lots,whether it is size or area or location; and to better document the inability of the future <br /> property owners to clear cut. <br /> Stickney noted there is a conservation design report for the property and that there will be covenants put <br /> in place. Stickney indicated he is not sure how he can get around that. <br /> Gaffron noted at their conservation design meeting they had a discussion regarding that and that it would <br /> be very hard to go forward without answering that question. Gaffron indicated one of the options that is <br /> available with any normal subdivision is that when creating outlots, stipulations would be put in saying <br /> that the outlots cannot be developed until they are replatted into lots. Gaffron stated he is not sure <br /> whether that accomplishes what the ultimate goal is but that it is standard boilerplate language that is <br /> included in a development agreement. Gaffron stated that in effect would put the onus on the next <br /> application. <br /> Lemke stated there would be no reason to turn it down and it likely would be approved. <br /> Stickney commented it is not a slam dunk. <br /> Thiesse stated to him this was a slam dunk the way it was but the game has been changed since the prairie <br /> area is no longer going to be in a land trust. <br /> Stickney stated in his view they are covered by what Mr. Gaffron has suggested. <br /> Gaffron noted that language does not guarantee future preservation of the prairie area but would require <br /> further review by a future Council before it is developed. Gaffron stated a developer would not be able to <br /> touch it until it goes through the process. <br /> Schoenzeit stated that is the crux of the issue. Schoenzeit stated the property owner has very strong <br /> property rights to be able to develop it and that now is the time to preserve those areas, which is the <br /> reason why this should be tabled for additional discussion on that item. <br /> Landgraver asked if Mr. Gaffron is saying that it puts another hurdle on the developer before the land can <br /> be developed. <br /> Gaffron indicated it would say that someone cannot build within the 30-acre outlot until it is replatted. <br /> Gaffron stated it essentially pushes future development of the area into the future and guarantees there <br /> will be no buildings on it until it is replatted. <br /> Lemke stated there will likely be no reason to turn a future development down. <br /> Page 24 of 37 <br />