Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br /> Monday, September 16,2013 <br /> 6:30 o'clock p.m. <br /> Gaffron stated shared driveways would be one way of reducing the amount of hardcover. <br /> Thiesse commented that the smiley face option appears to be a good solution, especially in light of the <br /> concerns raised by the neighbors. <br /> Leskinen stated she would be more in favor of a PRD since there would be an opportunity to preserve the <br /> back of the site. Leskinen commented the site is a beautiful parcel, but as it has been pointed out earlier, <br /> the Planning Commission cannot stop development if it conforms to the City codes. Leskinen indicated <br /> she is very much opposed to the back lot scenario with the long driveways and even the shared driveways <br /> under that scenario since shared driveways have been problematic in the past. <br /> Lemke suggested the applicants revise their plans more in accordance to what has been presented in the <br /> smiley face sketch. <br /> Leskinen stated the Planning Commission also needs to address the issue of the right-of-way. <br /> Landgraver commented requiring 50 feet might be an issue since the other properties along Northern <br /> Avenue have not been required to dedicate that much. <br /> Gaffron stated Staffs recommendation for the 50 feet rather than the 30 feet has come about very <br /> recently. While it is possible to relocate the road with 30 feet, it would be difficult, and that 50 feet would <br /> meet the code. <br /> Leskinen commented that 50 feet might be too much of a luxury if they also want to go with the PRD <br /> scenario and preserve the back portion of the site. <br /> Thiesse stated it could be 30 feet with a utility easement off to the side. <br /> Landgraver stated in his view the back lots on this development do not work and that pulling the <br /> development forward under the PRD scenario would help preserve a lot of the natural area as well as <br /> assist with the drainage. <br /> Schoenzeit stated leaving somewhere around 40 percent of the property untouched is a win/win solution <br /> and helps demonstrate to the neighborhood that a lot of things will not change as a result of the <br /> development. <br /> Landgraver noted the lots would not be 100 feet wide and that the homes would be more compacted <br /> together. <br /> Leskinen noted a planned unit development does allow for some flexibility in the width of the lots and <br /> clustering of homes,which is a compromise in order to preserve more of the natural areas. Leskinen <br /> commented she appreciates the level of passion the neighbors have shown regarding their neighborhood <br /> and that the City will take those comments into consideration. <br /> Gaffron recommended the application be tabled if the applicant is okay with that. <br /> Landgraver asked if the applicant is amenable to tabling the application. <br /> Page 32 of 34 <br />