05-24-2010 Council Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

,. 0 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL Monday, May 24, 2010 7:00 o'clock p.m. (4. #10 -3458 JUDSONDAYTON, 825 OLD CRYSTAL BAYROAD SOUTH, Continued) Winston indicated Mr. Dayton has provided a list of things that he has done of substance to the property. There is a tree service that attends to the trees annually and the applicant removes the buckthorn personally. Winston stated in his view this is a non - intrusive request relating to the- Conservation Master Plan and that they do not feel a design review is necessary on all the lots. There is an initial cost of $6,200 just to get started, followed by a review by the City's engineers, which will also add some expense. As things are fine - tuned, that number will increase and the plan could easily cost between $6,000 and $10,000, which could be put into the land. Mr. Winston stated in his view this is not the kind of subdivision that really requires that type of review. Winston stated they would be willing to bring this application back before the City Council when and if Lot 2 is built upon. Adams stated he is with Coldwell Banker/Bumett and has been Mr. Dayton's realtor for the past 20 years approximately. This is an incredible piece of property and the Daytons are the third owner of the property in the last 100 years, having purchased it in 1991. The previous owner of the property sold it to the Daytons because he felt that the Daytons would be the best stewards of the property. Adams stated Mr. Dayton has decided to sell a portion of this property and that his job is to inform his client of the ways to potentially maximize the dollars for this piece of land. There is approximately 1250 feet of lakeshore. The site plan originally submitted approximately five years ago had six lake lots and • four back lots. Adams indicated the applicant is very anti- development and that the reason for the lot line rearrangement is to create bigger sites. The lot line rearrangement creates additional options for Mr. Dayton should the property ever be sold or developed. Lot 1 as proposed will enable them to preserve the wetlands and as many trees as possible, which will not allow construction in that area. Mr. Dayton is requesting a 75 -foot setback on Lots 1 and 2. Lot 1 will require approximately 200 dump truck loads of fill to construct a house at that point and that they are submitting a variance application for that. Mr. Dayton does not want to disturb the natural environment because it would require the elimination of a number of trees and drainage issues. The setback will not negatively impact the adjoining property owners. Dayton stated when they were here approximately three or four years ago, they did discuss the setback for Lot 1 and they were close to approval of that when the properties were taken off of the market. White commented that Mr. Dayton has demonstrated that he is a good steward of the land but that the City Council needs to discuss the conservation design aspect of the application. Murphy asked what triggers the conservation design and whether it is really necessary at this stage of the development. Gaffron stated the applicability of the conservation design ordinance is contained in the second portion of the ordinance and applies to proposed subdivisions greater than five acres in total area or guided for urban density greater than two acres. Technically this is a residential subdivision since it is greater than five acres in total area. Gaffron stated some consideration should be given to the fact that it will only be three lots. • Gaffron suggested that perhaps the City Council could consider something similar to what was done with Little Orchard. The developer of that parcel provided a conservation easement along the 75 -foot area of Page 9 of 11