My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
05-10-1999 Council Minutes
Orono
>
City Council
>
Minutes
>
1990-1999
>
1999
>
05-10-1999 Council Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/1/2012 4:46:13 PM
Creation date
8/1/2012 4:46:13 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
18
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
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING <br />MINUTES FOR MAY 10, 1999 <br />( #5 Spring Hill Golf Club, continued) <br />Gaffron said his position is that for the entire length of County Road 6, 80 feet is adequate <br />and that is the case for Spring Hill as well as any other areas along County Road 6 that might <br />develop under the City's 1980 Comprehensive Tian which says that 80' is the standard. <br />Gaffron said that prior to 1980, the City did honor the County's requests. When the 1980 plan <br />was put in place and since then, the City has refused to grant the County the added rights -of- <br />way when they are asking for more than the City's Comprehensive Plan recommends. Part of <br />the reasoning is that if the County wants additional right -of -way, they should pay the residents <br />for it. He said that staff's recommendation is to approve the plat as it is proposed. Gaffron <br />said the Trail Agreement indicates that Spring Hill will grant to the City an expansion of the <br />right -of -way for the trail along Spring Hill Road and Tamarack Drive. The trail easement is <br />not shown on the plat. Gaffron said staff recommends approval of the plat as it is proposed <br />subject to the conditions stated in the staff report. <br />Crosby said he would prefer the bike trail to be under a separate agreement because if the <br />City and Spring Hill decide to change anything regarding the bike trail, it would be easier to <br />change an agreement than it would be to change a plat. He thinks the issues regarding the trail <br />have been agreed upon except for the part of the trail on the north side of County Road 6 by <br />the maintenance facility. <br />0 <br />Jabbour said it is a difficult area for developing a trail. He asked if the agreement should be • <br />made a part of the final plat approval. <br />Crosby said a survey needs to be done. He said they could give the City an agreement subject <br />to undertaking the survey. He mentioned that Spring Hill also owns the property south of <br />Outlot B. It was not included in the plat because it is located in a different section. It was <br />more difficult for the surveyors to pick it up because the section line is the southern line of <br />the outlot. It will be subject to the same conservation easement as the outlot, but there will be <br />a separate tax identification number. He said they would like to obtain final plat approval in <br />two weeks. <br />Jabbour said if the City grants preliminary approval, they must give final approval, so all the <br />conditions must be stated at this time. <br />Barrett said that the conditions the Council places on the preliminary plat approval are the <br />only ones that can be imposed for final plat approval. <br />Flint said he did not object to an agreement for the bike trail versus having it on the plat, but <br />he is concerned that the location of the trail has not been determined. He suggested that in the <br />difficult area of the trail located at intersection of Tamarack and County Road 6, the trail be <br />designated as 10 feet inside the boundary of the property and that would give flexibility as to <br />whether it was located inside the boundary of the property or on the County right -of -way. <br />40 <br />Page 8 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.