My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
10-24-2016 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
1950-2024
>
2010-2019
>
2016
>
10-24-2016 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/29/2019 2:15:41 PM
Creation date
11/28/2017 3:26:27 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
141
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, October 10, 2016 <br />7:00 o'clock p.m. <br />11. #16-3855 ERIC AND ANDREA LARSON, 690 BROW ROAD NORTH, SCOTT AND <br />JEANNE MABUSTH, 740 BROWN ROAD NORTH — SKETCH PLAN REVIEW (continued) <br />Levang indicated she is not afraid of new technology but that it would be good to have documentation on <br />how the newer technology has functioned. <br />Levang stated she would like to see more cohesion between the plan and that there seems to be three <br />different areas. Levang stated she likes the fact that when someone drives down Brown Road, they will <br />only see the two monuments and then nothing but trees. Levang stated in her view it would be a good <br />idea to maintain that. Levang stated while it is not a terrible plan, she would like to see a better plan. <br />Goodrum pointed out the green is basically the front yard and the yellow depicts the pervious pavers on <br />the driveway. Goodrum stated even though they have separate colors on the sketch plan, there is a nice <br />cohesiveness to the development and that it will blend into a natural neighborhood. <br />Council Member Cornick stated he is uncomfortable with the density. <br />Matt Duffy pointed out a lot of the technologies that are being proposed are tried and true and are not a <br />shot in the dark. Duffy stated he understands the concern with the rain gardens but that there are cities <br />where they have been implemented and work very well. T <br />Duffy stated the reason why the development is as dense as it is is because the proposed improvements <br />cost money. At the end of the day, when the improvements are done around Dickey Creek, there will be <br />an improvement in the lake water. Duffy stated the density drives those improvements and that they are <br />not asking for anything that is not already in the City's ordinances and that the development is consistent <br />with the area. <br />Duffy stated the property is unique from the standpoint that it provides a very fundamental opportunity to <br />improve the lake water in a cutting-edge way and that it will be an example to other developments on how <br />to improve lake quality. Duffy stated from their perspective, it matches and creates a very cohesive plan <br />with the other neighborhoods and amenities around the site. <br />McMillan stated it appears that the density is the biggest issue. <br />Levang stated she would like to hear from the neighbors on how they feel about the water quality and <br />preserving the character of the land and the neighborhood. <br />McMillan noted once the natural features are preserved, it will change the layout of the lots depending on <br />how extensive the enhancements are. <br />McMillan asked if Staff has had any discussions with the Watershed District regarding this development. <br />Gaffron stated he had a phone call with the Watershed District this afternoon and that they indicated they <br />have not visited the site and have not really had any discussions with the applicant. Gaffron stated a <br />notice of decision has not yet been submitted and his understanding is that the Watershed District has not <br />done much analysis of the property. <br />Page 18 of 26 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.