Laserfiche WebLink
• MII�iUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNIlVG COMMISSIQN MEETIATG <br /> Monday,May 18,2015 <br /> 6:30 o'ciock p.m. �;`; <br /> ��prau��e. Tluesse stated he can Lve vv�th 1$at if the praine is truly being protected,but right now no one is �� <br /> telling him that the prairie is being protected. � <br /> Sticlrney stated he will continue to maintain it and preserve it but that is aIl he can tell them. <br /> Schoenzeit moved to table ApplicAtion No. 15-3739,BPS Properties,IJ�C,300 Sizth Avenne North, <br /> with the applicant being requested to introduce more formal language in covenanb or eaisements <br /> for t6e non-buildabie areas; provide more clarity on the state of the prairie and how that could be <br /> part of the conservation plan of thia entire project; identil�specific building zones within certain <br /> wood lots,whether it i��iz�or area or location; and to better document the inability of the future <br /> property owners to clear cnt. <br /> Stickney noted there is a conservation deszgn 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 /> Gaf&on noted at their conservation design meeti.ng t�ey had a discussion regarding tbat ar�d that it would <br /> be very hard to go forwazd without answering tbat question. Gaf&on indicated ane of ttie options that is <br /> available with any normal subdivision is that when creating outlots, stipulations would ba put in saying <br /> that the outlots cannot be developed until they are replatted into lots. Gaffron statsd he is no#sure <br /> whether that accomplishes what�e ultimate goal is but that it is standard boilerplate language that is <br /> included in a development agreemen� Gaf&on 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 co�nmented it is not a slam dunk. <br /> Thiesse stated to him this was a slam dunk the way it was but the garne has been changed since the prairie <br /> area is no longer going to be in a land tcvst. <br /> Sticl�ney stated in his view they a,re covered by what Mr. Gaffran k►as suggested. <br /> Gaffron noted that language does not guarantiee future preservation of the prairie area but would require <br /> fucthez review by a future Council before it is developed. Gaffron stated a developer woald not be able to <br /> touch it until it goes through the process. <br /> Schcenzeit stated that is the crux of the issue. Schoenzert stated the property owner has very strong <br /> property rights to be able to develop it and that now is the time to presetve those areas,which is the <br /> reason why this should be tabled for additional discussion on that item. <br /> L,ar►d,graver asked if Mr. Gaffmn is saying that it puts another hurdle on the developer before the iand can <br /> be developed. . <br /> Gaffron indicated it would say that someone cannot build wit�in the 30-acre ou#1ot until it is replatted. <br /> Gaffiron stated it essentially pushes future development of the area into the future and guarantees there <br /> will be no bvildings on it until it is replatted. <br /> Lemke stated there will Iikeiy be no reaso�n.to turn a future deveiapment down. <br /> Page 24 of 37 <br />