11-25-2013 Council Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING � Monday,November 25,2013 7:00 o'clock p.m. (6. #13-3631 LANDSOURCE,LLC(TODD HOLMERS), 3700 NORTHERNAVENUE, PRELIMINARYPLAT—RESOLUTIONNO. 6345, Continued) Levang indicated she also is not in favor of Point No. 16,which is the easement for a walking area around the wetland. Levang noted the walking area will be within the buffer,which is not a good idea. Levang stated as Mr.Kempf pointed out at the last meeting,any kind of trampling on the land will disturb the natural habitat,which is problematic. Printup stated it is his recollection the walking trail was removed. Gaffron stated those are findings of the Planning Commission and City Council,which is merely saying that the Planning Commission recommended a trail. Gaffron stated if the City Council wants to make sure the trail will not happen,language needs to be included in the conditions of approval,which are on Page 8. Gaffron stated language prohibiting the trail is not included in that section. Levang stated she would ask for a disapproval of the trail and that she would like to see Lots 3 and 4 combined. McMillan indicated she is not in favor of a tree preservation easement on the back side of the property and noted that in order for the six homes to be built,it is likely most of the trees in the front will need to go. McMillan indicated she would not put a tree preservation easement on the back part either and that people have certain property rights. If the Council is going to allow people to own all the way to the back,they should be allowed certain rights. McMillan noted there will have to be a lot of cutting and moving and it will have an impact on the site,which is one reason why she is not comfortable with six homes. McMillan asked whether it should be Lot 3 or Lot 4 on the bottom of Page 4. Gaffron indicated it should only read Lot 4 that has less than a half-acre of total dry buildable. McMillan asked if the City has ever put a restriction on accessory structures in the past. Gaffron noted this is a PRD development and that the City Council has the right to put those limits on the development since a Planned Residential Development allows the City Council to vary from the normal City standards. Gaffron noted no one has said accessory structures would not be allowed within the areas that are not in the conservation easement and that the conservation easement was defined to include the buffer and the areas on the north half of the property. Gaffron noted the lots could have accessory buildings all the way to where the conservation easement starts. McMillan asked whether the City allowed accessory structures on Creekside. Gaffron indicated on Creekside there were lots that were an acre to slightly less than one acre in a two- acre zone. In that case the property owners own all the way to the lot line but there is a tree preservation easement over the last 50 feet. McMillan asked whether accessory structures were allowed. Gaffron indicated he does not recall. Page 20 of 29