01-13-2014 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, December 9,2013 6:30 o'clock p.m. (9. #13-3637 WILLI ABBOTT ONBEHALF OF THE BROADWAY GROUP, LLC, 2350 WATERTOW]V ROAD,AND X� WILLOW DRIVE NORTH—PRELIMINARYSUBDIVISION, Conti�zued) Gaffron stated in terms of park and trail easements and fees or dedication,the Comprehensive Trail Plan shows that there was intended and perhaps still is intended a trail segment that follows Willow Drive down from the new Highway 12 corridor. That trail does not currently exist and whether it ever will is questionable. With the Glendale Cove subdivision, the City obtained a 10-foot trail easeme�lt along the west side of the property all the way down to where this property begins. Gaffron stated it would make sense to also obtain a similar 10-foot easement on this property for a possible future trail. There would also be a park fee based on six lots rather than seven since they would receive credit for the existing house. The city assessor would need to take a look at the final values, but it would be eight percent of the total value, which would be somewhere between $19,000 and $33,000 in total park fees. As it relates to stormwater and drainage improvements, the applicant is proposing a number of rain gardens. The subject property is also going to be required to pay a stormwater and drainage trunk fee that would amount to approximately $28,000. Gaffron stated the applicant is proposinb a SO-foot wide corridor for the public road with an expansion to the property to the soutlleast. If that property is ever developed, that narrow triangular area would make it potentially possible. Gaffron indicated he is not sure how that property will be developed but that this would allow for that possibility. The developer will be constructing the road and sewer lines at his cost and the costs would not be assessed. The City Council should consider the following: 1. Should development of this site be as a Residentia( Planned Unit Development. From Staf�s perspective, there is not another option and it should be rezoned as an RPUD. 2. Does Council have any issue with the flexibility required for certain lots as noted regarding lot width contiguous buildable area ar setbacks. 3. Similar to Glendale Cove, at the proposed urban density, this new cul-de-sac road is intended to be a public road and the City will ultimately maintain the road and municipal sewer system that the developer constructs. 4. The Planning Commission has recommended against creation of an outlot for preservation of the natural amenities of the site, preferrinb that each lot contain its share of the areas to be protected via conservation easements. 5. Is Council in agreement with the Planning Commission that the l0 percent recreation area required by the RPUD standards is satisfied by dedication of easements for tree preservation and a walking easement over the existing and proposed 20-foot sewer easements. 6. Council should discuss the proposed landscaping and confirm that additional trees along Willow Drive should be added as a buffer to this development. Page 18 of 35 _ _ __ _. __ __ _ .