Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO CITY PLANNING COMMISSION <br /> Monday,October 21,2013 <br /> 6:30 o'clock p.m. <br /> require differing setbacks for each side of the lot and still leave at least 20 feet between the homes.The <br /> Planning Commission could also require that the homes on the deeper lots be set back further than those <br /> on the restricted center or the Planning Commission could establish appropriate"lot coverage by <br /> structures" standard for the individual lots based on lot size. <br /> Gaffron stated from a hardcover and structural coverage standpoint,the center lots are restricted and the <br /> hardcover and structural coverage standards would need to be varied to build the homes that are proposed. <br /> One option would be to limit the middle homes to a 1,500 square foot footprint instead of the 2,500 <br /> square feet that are being proposed. <br /> Gaffron noted the City received one concern today from the neighbor to the direct west that the driveway <br /> for the house at the left end of the development would be close to his house. The proposed driveway is <br /> currently shown at about a 10 to 15-foot setback. The neighbor is suggesting that perhaps the driveway <br /> could shift to the east side of that lot. Gaffron stated in his view that issue can be worked out with the <br /> developer since specific house designs have not been established at this point. <br /> Gaffron noted there would be a conservation easement over the north portion of the property under <br /> Option 2. <br /> Staff would recommend the following: <br /> 1. Process the subdivision as a PRD,which will allow for a defined relaxation of lot area,width, <br /> hardcover, lot coverage, and other applicable standards. <br /> 2. Staff recommends site plan Option 2,which preserves the northerly portions of the property in a <br /> single outlot subject to a Conservation Easement. Ownership of the outlot would be established <br /> within a homeowners association that will be responsible for any management of the site,rain <br /> garden maintenance, et cetera. <br /> 3. If visual density is a concern,the Planning Commission could require one or more of the methods <br /> mentioned in Staff's report to reduce the crowding effect. <br /> 4. A recommendation for approval should be subject to the standard platting requirements including <br /> park dedication, stormwater trunk fees, granting of appropriate easements, etc. <br /> Lemke asked if the conservation property would be open to the public or owned by the homeowners <br /> association. <br /> Gaffron indicated that would be an item for discussion. Gaffron noted the Planning Commission heard at <br /> the last meeting that the public values that area as natural space for wildlife and vegetation. Whether the <br /> neighbors would be allowed to walk in that area is something the developer should address as the <br /> covenant easement could be drafted either way. <br /> McGrann asked if the house on the westerly lot can be located further back. <br /> Gaffron stated Lots 1 and 2 both could have the homes situated further back. <br /> McGrann asked if the house on Lot 6 could be pushed back further. <br /> Page 13 of 42 <br />