Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br />ORONO CITY PLANNING COMMISSION <br />Monday, October 21, 2013 <br />6:30 o’clock p.m. <br />_____________________________________________________________________________________ <br />  <br />Page 15 of 42  <br />  <br />Stickney indicated he would not need one but that there would be an agreement that would regulate tree <br />maintenance and provide for no build zones. <br /> <br />Schwingler asked how enforceable that type of situation would be. <br /> <br />Gaffron stated Staff would prefer the outlot situation. Gaffron stated people will want to erect fences and <br />maintain past the line of what they perceive the easement to be. Markers could be erected but the <br />association would be somewhat self-limiting since each property owner would own a portion of that back <br />parcel. Gaffron stated under that situation there are potentially more issues with enforcement when the <br />land is under individual ownership that may be more difficult to deal with than with ownership by the <br />association. <br /> <br />Lemke asked whether that land could be dedicated or given to the City as an option. <br /> <br />Gaffron indicated the City normally does not do that. Gaffron noted there is no access to the back portion <br />of the property under this scenario. Normally the City would require maintenance of the storm water <br />ponds by the association and it is not something the City would like to maintain control of. <br /> <br />Thiesse indicated he agrees with the applicant that the individuals should own that piece of land all the <br />way back since the same standards could be applied. Thiesse asked whether there would be an access <br />easement for Lot 4 around the pond to access their back yard. <br /> <br />Stickney stated it would be a no build zone so there would not be fences. <br /> <br />Thiesse stated in his view the City can control the rear portion of the property and that it is easier to deal <br />with a single homeowner. <br /> <br />Stickney stated the property would be held to a higher standard in that situation but the individual <br />property owners would be in control of the land. <br /> <br />McGrann asked whether all of them would have access to walk around the pond. <br /> <br />Stickney stated the neighbors would have access to the area but could not build back there. <br /> <br />Gaffron indicated there is precedent for doing what Mr. Stickney is suggesting. Gaffron noted the <br />Creekside subdivision located off of Brown Road has a tree preservation area within two individual lots <br />which is not part of a homeowners association. <br /> <br />McGrann asked if someone could landscape in that area or whether other limitations would be placed on <br />the land. <br /> <br />Gaffron stated the City would expect under the conservation easement is no mowing, no cutting, no <br />fences, no accessory structures and virtually no use of it. The area would need to stay natural. If the <br />neighborhood would like to create paths, that could be allowed, but the conservation easement would <br />basically require that the natural features remain as natural as possible. <br /> <br />Stickney stated that type of arrangement works nice and there would be stipulations and penalties for not <br />following the covenant. <br />Item #01 - PC Agenda - 11/18/2013 <br />Approval of Planning Commission Minutes 10/21/2013 <br />[Page 15 of 42]