Laserfiche WebLink
, MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING <br /> Monday,June 20,2016 <br /> 6:30 o'clock p.m. <br /> Schoenzeit noted that existing Kintyre Lane would not change in dimension. <br /> Lemke asked how long the cul-de-sae would be under staff's proposed sketch.. <br /> Gaffron indicated the southerly cul-de-sac would extend Kintyre Lane over the 1000-foot maximum but <br /> not nearly the 1500-foot length approved previously. <br /> Lemke asked if the applicant could use the same layout they had proposed previously with the one cul-de- <br /> sac and eliminate the access off of Stubbs Bay. <br /> Gaffron stated they could by extending the road up to the point where all five lots abut the cul-de-sac. As <br /> a result, none of those lots would be considered as back lots but it would require some shifting of lot <br /> lines. <br /> Leskinen asked if it would still be possible to realize the objective of the applicant to bypass the trees by <br /> doing that. <br /> Gaffron stated revising the location could result in eliminating some of the trees. <br /> Thiesse noted the majority of the trees are 20-year-old evergreens. Thiesse asked what the intent of the <br /> back lot ordinance is. <br /> Gaffron stated when a back lot is created, the normal situation is that there is a front lot that abuts the one <br /> lot behind it. If there is a long, narrow piece of property that does not lend itself to being split side by <br /> side but does lend itself to being split front to back, rather than create a flag lot, a 30-foot outlot is created <br /> that goes up the side,which ends at the back lot. The issue with back lots is the ability for emergency <br /> vehicles to access that lot. The impact on the back lot would be greater setback requirements. The front <br /> lot is normally required to access from the outlot. <br /> Thiesse asked if the applicant could include the dry buildable out of Outlot A. <br /> Gaffron indicated the applicant could move some lot lines around. <br /> Schoenzeit asked why the applicant could not reverse the cul-de-sac and then not go through the tree <br /> stand, but come in from Stubbs Bay Road. <br /> Gaffron stated there is no obvious reason why it could not come in off of Stubbs Bay Road and that is <br /> something the applicant would need to address. <br /> Christopher Bollis, 350 Stubbs Bay Road, stated their intent with this plan was to come up with <br /> something that is more environmentally friendly by not crossing the wetlands and preserving the trees and <br /> open space. Bollis noted the changes do not necessarily meet the Conservation Design Code but that they <br /> were attempting to save the trees. If the cul-de-sac is done with a 50-foot corridor,most of the trees will <br /> be gone and there will be a wetland that would need to be mitigated. <br /> Schoenzeit stated the applicant will need to do it with a standard road width and not with outlots. <br /> — — — - Page 3 <br />