Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br />ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING <br />Monday, January 22, 2007 <br />7:00 o’clock p.m. <br />_____________________________________________________________________________________ <br />(5. #07-3257 BPS PROPERTIES, 95 LEAF STREET, Continued) <br /> <br />area. Stickney stated they are planning for a net increase of approximately 100 trees once they are done <br />with the development. <br /> <br />Stickney stated under the revised plan the smallest lot would consist of 1.66 acres, the largest lot would <br />consist of 2.89 acres, and the average size of the lots in the development would be 2.10 acres dry <br />buildable. Stickney stated the average street frontage setback is 210 feet. The conservation area is <br />approximately 7.37 acres, which would be restricted with no cut zones and no build zones. <br /> <br />Numerous test sites have been conducted on the development, which have demonstrated that each lot <br />should be able to have its own septic and well. <br /> <br />Stickney stated the length of the roadway would be 1365 feet. Stickney noted that there are other roads <br />within the City that are longer in length than what is being proposed for this area. <br /> <br />White inquired whether the road would be adequate for fire protection. <br /> <br />Kellogg indicated he would defer to the fire marshal on the width of the roadway but that he does not see <br />anything problematic based on what has been done in the past. Kellogg stated based on the two <br />stormwater ponds, there would probably be a need for curb and gutter. <br /> <br />White noted Staff feels there should be a through connection to Watertown Road. <br /> <br />Gaffron stated the advantage of providing for the connection would be for future development and would <br />eliminate the need for the City to purchase property in the future. Gaffron noted the City currently does <br />have a considerable number of streets similar to this roadway. Gaffron stated the standard road width <br />would be 28 feet. <br /> <br />McMillan inquired whether there is development to the east that is anticipated. <br /> <br />Gaffron stated that it was the intent to provide a corridor connection to the east in the event this area <br />would become developed further. <br /> <br />McMillan commented it appears the parcel north of the Luce Line could become partially landlocked with <br />this development. <br /> <br />Stickney stated High Lane would have sufficient frontage to provide that connection. <br /> <br />Gaffron stated if the cul-de-sac at the north end abuts enough of that property, it could possibly be teed <br />into. <br /> <br />Stickney stated that is one option and that another option would be to create one more lot and angling it <br />slightly along the frontage. <br /> <br />Murphy commented there are a lot of attractive elements to this development and that he appreciates the <br />efforts of the developer to try to preserve as many of the trees as possible. Murphy inquired how the <br />developer feels about doing the conservation areas and whether 15 lots are necessary for this <br />development. Murphy noted that there are five lots that are less than the two-acre requirement. <br />______________________________________________________________________________ <br />PAGE 3 of 13 <br />Item #02 - CC Agenda 02-12-07 <br />[Page 3 of 13]