My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
06-14-2010 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
2010
>
06-14-2010 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/13/2015 4:04:17 PM
Creation date
2/24/2012 10:06:23 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
103
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
MINUTES OF THE <br />ORONO CITY COUNCIL <br />Monday, May 24, 2010 <br />7:00 o’clock p.m. <br />_____________________________________________________________________________________ <br />Page 9 of 11 <br /> <br /> <br />(4. #10-3458 JUDSON DAYTON, 825 OLD CRYSTAL BAY ROAD SOUTH, Continued) <br /> <br />Winston indicated Mr. Dayton has provided a list of things that he has done of substance to the property. <br />There is a tree service that attends to the trees annually and the applicant removes the buckthorn <br />personally. Winston stated in his view this is a non-intrusive request relating to the Conservation Master <br />Plan and that they do not feel a design review is necessary on all the lots. There is an initial cost of <br />$6,200 just to get started, followed by a review by the City’s engineers, which will also add some <br />expense. As things are fine-tuned, that number will increase and the plan could easily cost between <br />$6,000 and $10,000, which could be put into the land. Mr. Winston stated in his view this is not the kind <br />of subdivision that really requires that type of review. <br /> <br />Winston stated they would be willing to bring this application back before the City Council when and if <br />Lot 2 is built upon. <br /> <br />Adams stated he is with Coldwell Banker/Burnett and has been Mr. Dayton’s realtor for the past 20 years <br />approximately. This is an incredible piece of property and the Daytons are the third owner of the property <br />in the last 100 years, having purchased it in 1991. The previous owner of the property sold it to the <br />Daytons because he felt that the Daytons would be the best stewards of the property. <br /> <br />Adams stated Mr. Dayton has decided to sell a portion of this property and that his job is to inform his <br />client of the ways to potentially maximize the dollars for this piece of land. There is approximately 1250 <br />feet of lakeshore. The site plan originally submitted approximately five years ago had six lake lots and <br />four back lots. Adams indicated the applicant is very anti-development and that the reason for the lot line <br />rearrangement is to create bigger sites. The lot line rearrangement creates additional options for Mr. <br />Dayton should the property ever be sold or developed. Lot 1 as proposed will enable them to preserve the <br />wetlands and as many trees as possible, which will not allow construction in that area. Mr. Dayton is <br />requesting a 75-foot setback on Lots 1 and 2. Lot 1 will require approximately 200 dump truck loads of <br />fill to construct a house at that point and that they are submitting a variance application for that. Mr. <br />Dayton does not want to disturb the natural environment because it would require the elimination of a <br />number of trees and drainage issues. The setback will not negatively impact the adjoining property <br />owners. <br /> <br />Dayton stated when they were here approximately three or four years ago, they did discuss the setback for <br />Lot 1 and they were close to approval of that when the properties were taken off of the market. <br /> <br />White commented that Mr. Dayton has demonstrated that he is a good steward of the land but that the <br />City Council needs to discuss the conservation design aspect of the application. <br /> <br />Murphy asked what triggers the conservation design and whether it is really necessary at this stage of the <br />development. <br /> <br />Gaffron stated the applicability of the conservation design ordinance is contained in the second portion of <br />the ordinance and applies to proposed subdivisions greater than five acres in total area or guided for urban <br />density greater than two acres. Technically this is a residential subdivision since it is greater than five <br />acres in total area. Gaffron stated some consideration should be given to the fact that it will only be three <br />lots. <br /> <br />Gaffron suggested that perhaps the City Council could consider something similar to what was done with <br />Little Orchard. The developer of that parcel provided a conservation easement along the 75-foot area of <br />Item #02 - CC Agenda - 06/14/2010 <br />Approval of Council Minutes 05/24/2010 <br />[Page 9 of 11]
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.