02-13-2012 Council Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, February 13, 2012 • 7:00 o'clock p.m. (8. #12 -3539 SURYA AND ANTHONY ROCHEL, 125 TURNHAM ROAD, Continued) unique character change. While Staff does -acknowledge that a number of trees will be removed, they did not see it as a conflict since tree removal is permitted. After reviewing all the criteria, both Staff and the Planning Commission have found that all the criteria have been met and are recommending approval with conditions of the application. Gozola noted a number of neighbors had expressed concerns at the Planning Commission meeting. The neighbor directly to the north expressed concerns regarding the potential impacts to the shared driveway, specifically as it relates to ruts and erosion, and requested that those be controlled and fixed. A currently damaged culvert between the two properties will be fixed and designed better to handle runoff. Other neighbors expressed similar concerns regarding the driveway. To address those concerns, it was recommended that an escrow be required. The City Attorney, however, has expressed some concern regarding the escrow and the City's ability to require it in this situation. Mattick stated typically the City will require an escrow to ensure that certain public improvements are completed. Mattick noted this is not a public street and is an easement on someone else's property. Mattick indicated he has not seen other cities in the past get involved in private. disputes. Mattick stated in this case the City would be holding money to fix a problem that is not on City property and that he has a concern about how that will be administered. As it relates to Item Number 10, the language currently reads "the applicant is strongly encouraged to provide protection to users of the Luce Line trail during all construction activities (obtain approval to erect temporary signage on both sides of the shared driveway on the Luce Line to warn users of the potential construction traffic)." Mattick indicated his position would be that the City either require the signage or not, and that his recommendation would be to eliminate language stating "strongly encouraged" as part of condition 10. McMillan commented she is not sure whether any type of signage would be allowed by Three Rivers and that they will have to be contacted if any signage is erected on the trail. Gozola stated that was the discussion at the Planning Commission level and that is how they arrived at the language "strongly encourage" as part of the condition. Rahn asked how one party would protect themselves from the other with a shared driveway. Mattick noted the applicant still gets to use the access, and that if the driveway is damaged, the neighbor has the right to approach the applicant and ask for repairs. Mattick indicated he is not sure how the City would make those determinations and then determine how much money is required. Rahn concurred that it is outside the City's scope, and that if the two parties cannot work it out, it would become a legal situation between the two neighbors. • Mattick stated it is his assumption that the neighbors will monitor the situation and that he is not aware of the quality of the access or the road at the present time. Rahn asked whether primary and secondary septic sites can overlap. Page 7 of 22