My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
04-23-2012 Council Minutes
Orono
>
City Council
>
Minutes
>
2010-2019
>
2012
>
04-23-2012 Council Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/1/2012 4:26:52 PM
Creation date
8/1/2012 4:26:52 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
16
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 MEETING <br />Monday, April 23, 2012 <br />7:00 o'clock p.m. <br />(4. #12 -3546 TODD HOLMERS ONBEHALF OFMAPLE PLACE, LLC,1545 MAPLE <br />PLACE, Continued) <br />Gaffron stated at least 50 percent of the perimeter of the lowest floor foundation must have less than a <br />six -foot exposure from the floor above. Gaffron stated if you look at it from the standpoint of standing on <br />the main floor level, if you can go down more than six feet to existing grade for more than half of the <br />existing foundation, then the lower level is considered a story. City Code allows up to two and a half <br />stories, so someone can have a basement and two stories, which is typical on a walkout. <br />McMillan asked if all the homes are proposed to be two stories plus a basement. <br />Gaffron stated the applicant has not indicated otherwise and that it is Staffs assumption the building <br />layout that was given to the City will be utilized on all of the lots. <br />Printup noted as it relates to the revegetation requirement, Part C of the resolution talks abouvan escrow <br />of $10,000. Printup asked whether the escrow would cover the revegetation and stabilization. <br />Gaffron indicated the revegetation and stabilization is not a landscape plan but would help' to ensure <br />ground cover. The $10,000 does not necessarily cover anything else. <br />,7 <br />Printup asked if that requirement would apply prior to the construction of the homes. Printup noted the • <br />lots have been clear cut. <br />Gaffron stated the applicant has been asked numerous times to provide silt fencing and that he is not sure <br />whether that has been erected yet at this time. <br />Rahn indicated there is no silt fence on the site. <br />Bremer asked if they would be able to do the grading without a conditional use permit. <br />Gaffron stated each lot needs to be graded in conjunction with the adjoining lot and it was felt that a <br />conditional use permit would allow them the latitude to follow a comprehensive grading plan for the <br />entire site. <br />Bremer asked if that is with the applicant's agreement. <br />Gaffron indicated it is. <br />Mattick noted it is considered one project and that the grading would not be self - contained on each lot. <br />Bremer asked how much each individual lot would be entitled to move without a conditional use permit. <br />Gaffron stated they would likely be looking at the 500 cubic yards. Gaffron stated in other similar <br />situations in the past, the City has dealt with it as a subdivision rather than individual lots. <br />McMillan noted the land has been clear cut and that as part of this project all seven lots will be reshaped. • <br />McMillan stated when you are talking about reshaping all seven lots at one time and attempting to <br />Page 6 of 16 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.