Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br /> Monday, September 16,2013 <br /> 6:30 o'clock p.m. <br /> McGrann asked what the width of the lots is to the left. <br /> Gaffron indicated they are approximately 85 feet. <br /> McGrann asked if one of the lots is 103 feet wide. <br /> Gaffron stated there is one lot at 99 feet and one at 101 as you go west into Spring Park. Gaffron stated <br /> there is a variety of lot sizes. <br /> Stickney stated approximately 60 percent of the lots do not contain a half-acre dry buildable. <br /> Landgraver stated while there is a variety of lot sizes,the range is basically 120 feet on the high side and <br /> 70 feet on the low and that these lot sizes appear to be in that range. <br /> McGrann stated he appreciates all the commentary from the neighbors. McGrann stated the ideal <br /> situation would be that the neighborhood purchases the lots so the area can remain the same but that does <br /> not seem to be the situation. McGrann stated in his view it is very likely this site will be developed at <br /> some point,which is the right of the property owner, and that it becomes a matter of determining what <br /> works best according to City Code. McGrann asked if they require the 100 feet width, how many lots <br /> would be allowed. <br /> Gaffron stated if six lots are created,the width of the lots would be approximately 77 feet. Under a PRD, <br /> there would be a waiving of the standards in order to create a better layout. Under a PRD concept, it is <br /> likely that a number of building sites would be identified and the rest of the area would be commons area. <br /> One of the advantages to doing a PRD is that the City has the opportunity to preserve more of the <br /> property and perhaps place a conservation easement over portions of the site. <br /> Stickney commented a tree preservation agreement would also be an option. <br /> Gaffron agreed that that would be another option. Under a PRD,there would be opportunities to preserve <br /> areas that are outside of the individual lots and those would become common areas that an association <br /> would help maintain. <br /> Leskinen asked what the lot widths are under the smiley face option. <br /> Gaffron indicated there would need to be a discussion with the developer about what type of homes <br /> would be constructed. Gaffron indicated his sketch is more conceptual and that it would also depend on <br /> the topography. Gaffron stated the bowl shaped area near the wetland might be more conducive to <br /> walkouts. <br /> Landgraver asked if each lot would have their own driveway to the street. <br /> Gaffron stated that is one option or perhaps they could share a driveway. <br /> Landgraver stated a number of the neighbors expressed a concern about the water runoff and the <br /> additional hardcover. <br /> Page 31 of 34 <br />