My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
01-27-2014 Council Minutes
Orono
>
City Council
>
Minutes
>
2010-2019
>
2014
>
01-27-2014 Council Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/5/2015 1:59:07 PM
Creation date
3/5/2015 1:58:30 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
32
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
MINUTES OF THE <br />ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING <br />Monday, January 27, 2014 <br />7:00 o’clock p.m. <br />_____________________________________________________________________________________ <br /> <br />Page 12 of 32 <br /> <br />(5. #13-3637 WILLI ABBOTT ON BEHALF OF THE BROADWAY GROUP, LLC – 2350 <br />WATERTOWN ROAD AND XXX WILLOW DRIVE NORTH – PRELIMINARY PLAT AND RPUD <br />REZONING, Continued) <br /> <br />McMillan asked whether the wetland in Glendale Cove is platted as an outlot. <br /> <br />Gaffron indicated it is privately owned by an association. <br /> <br />McMillan asked if it is contiguous to this other wetland. <br /> <br />Gaffron indicated it likely is but that there might be some higher ground separating the two due to some <br />trees in the area. <br /> <br />McMillan asked why the City would not want this wetland to be part of an outlot. <br /> <br />Gaffron stated Staff from the beginning has favored creation of an outlot for the wetland, which would <br />potentially include the proposed tree preservation area. Gaffron indicated this would be similar to the <br />development scheme of Glendale Cove to the immediate north. This would require establishment of a <br />homeowners association to own and manage those areas, which the developer does not favor. <br /> <br />Gaffron stated looking back at the minutes from December of 2005 and January of 2006, the discussion <br />focused on the density and the fact that there will be city utilities in the right-of-way. The City Council <br />had a consensus at that time that the road be a public road. The City’s Comprehensive Plan also contains <br />a statement which reads as follows: Under urban transportation policies, No. 1, local streets in the urban <br />area will be owned and maintained by the City. Because the land use and street use density for the urban <br />neighborhoods is relatively high, the City will provide public street access to all urban properties. The <br />City’s responsibility for proper maintenance levels will ensure passable all-weather streets available at all <br />times for emergency vehicles and for general public ingress and egress. Gaffron noted they are basically <br />following what the Comprehensive Plan says about urban development. <br /> <br />Levang stated she has a problem with that since the City would be responsible for all the maintenance and <br />upkeep in the future. Levang stated when the City is taking over another road, that means the City is <br />taking on all the responsibility for the maintenance and upkeep over time, and when they are talking about <br />serving seven homes and making that a public road, she has problem with that when so many of the <br />surrounding neighborhoods are all private. <br /> <br />Gaffron noted those are all two acre lots. <br /> <br />McMillan commented it is more expensive for the homeowners on the two-acre lots given the longer <br />driveways and road as well as fewer homes. <br /> <br />Gaffron stated the second suggestion from Mr. Kelley is to move the access road 15 feet north. The <br />proposed cul-de-sac abuts the northwest corner of Kelley’s property and includes a corridor segment that <br />would allow for potential future road connection to the Kelley property. <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.