Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANN�NG COA�IlVIISSION MEETING <br /> Monday,May 18,2015 <br /> 6:30 o'clock p.m. <br /> prairio. Tbiesse 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 alI he can tell them. <br /> Schoenzeit moved to table Application No. 15-3739,BPS Properties,LLC,300 Sizth Avenue North, <br /> with the applicant being t equested to intrndace more formal language in coveaants or easements <br /> for t�e nan-bnildable aress; prnvide more elarity on the state of the prairie and how that couid be <br /> part of the conservallon plan of this entire prnject; identify specific building wnes within cerEain <br /> wood lots,whether it is size or area or location; and to better document the inability of the future <br /> property owne�to clenr cut. <br /> Stickney aoted 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. Gafi'ron indicated one of the options that is <br /> �vailable with any normal subdivision is that when creatuag 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 ttie 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 /> I.�mke 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 /> "I'hiesse stazed 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�y what Mr.Gaffron has suggested. <br /> Gaf�'ron noted that language does not guarantee future preservation of thc prairie area but would require <br /> further review by a fvture Council before it is davetoped. Gaffnon stated a developer would not be able to <br /> touch it until it goes through the process. <br /> Schoenzeit stated that is the cruac of the issue. Schoenzeit stated the property owner has very strong <br /> property rights to be able to develop it and that now is�e tim�to preserve those areas,which is the <br /> reason why this should be t�bled 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 /> Ga,�'ron indicabed it would say that someone cannot huild within the 30-acre outlot until it is replatted. <br /> Gaf&on stated it essentially pushes firture 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 tum a future development dowt�. <br /> Page 24 of 37 <br />