Laserfiche WebLink
( <br /> MINLTTES OF THE ' <br /> ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING <br /> Tuesday,November 12,2013 <br /> 7:00 o'clock p.m. <br /> (7. #13-3631 LANDSOURCE,LLC(TODD HOLMERS), 3700 NORTHERNAVENUE, <br /> SUBDIVISION—PRELIMINARY PLAT—PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT, <br /> Continued) <br /> Stickney stated the Planning Commission felt they were well within the range of acceptability with the <br /> number of lots. Stickney noted they have been going through this process for seven or eight months and <br /> that they could create something that would comply but be a lot less desirable. Stickney stated he is <br /> surprised at the discussion about limiting it to four lots. <br /> Levang noted the Council looks at each application individually and that she would like to see this <br /> application tabled or denied. <br /> Stickney stated this discussion is the opposite of what they envisioned. <br /> Anderson noted she attended both Planning Commission meetings and that she was more in favor of the <br /> smiley face PRD option. Anderson indicated she liked the idea of the homeowners association taking <br /> care of the outlots and that a number of the neighbors indicated they enjoyed the natural area. <br /> Levang stated she also attended both Planning Commission meetings and that she did not like the plan <br /> either time because in her view the density is too high. Levang stated in her view the back portion of the <br /> property should be preserved with a conservation easement and that she would like to see a proposal with <br /> 100-foot wide lots,one-half acre density,and no trail. <br /> McMillan indicated she agrees with Council Member Levang. <br /> Bremer indicated she prefers Option 1 and that she generally likes the idea of a conservation easement <br /> versus an outlot. Bremer stated she would agree to either Option 1 or Option 2 depending on what the <br /> other Council members thought. <br /> McMillan stated four lots without the back outlot would also be fine but that it would not be ideal to add <br /> more density to a site that comfortably fits four. McMillan stated the developer is attempting to max out <br /> the property. <br /> Stickney noted the dry buildable is .63. <br /> McMillan noted the wetland in the middle makes it more difficult and that the dry buildable is not all <br /> contiguous. <br /> Printup asked at what point it would be necessary to send the application back to the Planning <br /> Commission. <br /> Gaffron indicated the City Council has that option at any time. Gaffron noted the 120-day deadline for <br /> review expires January 7 and that the application would not go to the Planning Commission until mid <br /> January. If that would occur,the applicant would need to agree to an extension. If the applicant does not <br /> agree to an extension,the City Council would need to deny the application at some point before the <br /> deadline expires. <br /> Page 8 of 36 <br />