Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL <br />MEETING HELD ON JUNE 23, 199'7 <br />( #7 - #2240 Tim Waters Sketch Plan - Continued) <br />Flint voiced another concern. He said he has difficulty viewing this application as a PRD <br />without the Sollner and Soskin properties. He would like the entire area looked at as a <br />whole. Gaffron responded that the proposal did consider the whole area for the PRD. <br />Flint questioned what control there would be on the Sollner and Soskin properties and <br />what impacts would be felt on the entire area by the subdivision_ <br />labbour asked Gaffron if Staff agreed or disagreed with Flint. <br />Gaffron said he agreed that the Park and Planning Commissions need to review the whole <br />area comprehensively. He indicated that the Park Commission has not seen the most <br />recent plan. They saw the plan for the Sollner property and the first draft of the northern <br />area. Gaffron said the Planning Commission reviewed the sketch plan for the southern <br />property but did not find it necessary to pass the sketch plan for that area on to the <br />Council. Gaffton said the Planning Commission felt the properties required sewering and <br />a PRD to achieve the open space amenities. Gaffron said the applicant could provide <br />reasoning for the plans and Staff sees the proposal as viable. <br />Jabbour asked Gaf -ron if Staff is satisfied with the southern plan in terms of number of <br />units and density. Gaf -ron indicated that the subdivisions could be considered together or <br />separately, and that the southerly plan would meet density requirements. He noted there <br />• are issues regarding density with the northern plan. <br />labbour asked if there is a mechanism by which to deal with the subdivision as a PRD. <br />Gaffron said there was as long as the property is sewered and Council found adequate <br />reasons. Jabbour asked if the PRD could occur without sewering. Gaffron said no. <br />Goetten asked about the status of the property being considered for a park. Waters said <br />he has an option on the two Sollner lots. Waters said he understands that the full Council <br />is not here and understands the reservations regarding the concepts. He asked to be able <br />to discuss briefly why the particular approach has been taken. <br />Waters noted when the City acquired the Saga Hill park property, all of the land that was <br />within the MUSA was considered prime property for development with the platted right - <br />of -way access to the site. With the creation of the park, Waters said the City desired to <br />gain access to the park and limit access through the park. He said that in effect landlocks <br />the two parcels within the MUSA, the Sollner lots, both zoned one acre and eligible for <br />sewering. Waters said some benefit could be achieved by providing access to the park <br />via Garden Lane to the Sollner property without making the park become a through <br />street. <br />Waters reviewed the sketch plans presented. <br />40 <br />7 <br />