Laserfiche WebLink
Metadata
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015 Laserfiche. All rights reserved.
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br /> Monday,November 18,2013 <br /> 6:30 o'clock p.m. <br /> Gaffron stated in this view, if this developer constructs all the homes, it would be fine. If another <br /> contractor ends up building the homes and constructs something different,there is a risk the homes could <br /> be constructed right up to the front. <br /> Thiesse asked whether any requirements could be placed on the development requiring that the homes be <br /> pushed further back. <br /> Gaffron indicated it would be difficult to do. <br /> Landgraver stated in his view the Planning Commission should ask for that. <br /> Thiesse stated he does not want to just set a number without some input from the developer. <br /> Abbott stated that would happen more so on Lot 3. Due to the buffer to the creek,the back yards are also <br /> very tight. Abbott indicated the owners of Lot 5 would like to be pushed further back. If all the homes <br /> are pushed back, it would reduce the back of the lots and would lower the value of the lots. <br /> Landgraver stated pushing the homes back further from the street would help to reduce massing along the <br /> street. <br /> Leskinen concurred that pushing the homes back would lessen the massing impact along the street. <br /> Thiesse noted there are only three homes being proposed in that area. Thiesse indicated he is happy with <br /> where they are given the size of the homes and that in his view there is sufficient room for snow storage. <br /> McGrann stated he is in agreement with Commissioner Thiesse. <br /> Gaffron noted the code technically says that if there is frontage on the road and the cul-de-sac,the <br /> driveway should be on the road. <br /> Gaffron stated the Planning Commission should discuss the fact that three of the lots have less than the <br /> required contiguous dry area. <br /> It was the consensus of the Planning Commission that that is not an issue for this development. <br /> Gaffron asked if the Planning Commission is in favor of going with the 15 percent structural coverage <br /> limit versus the floor area ratio. <br /> It was the consensus of the Planning Commission to recommend the 15 percent structural coverage limit. <br /> Gaffron asked if the Planning Commission would like to see Outlot A become part of the trail system. <br /> Currently being proposed is a trail easement in the same area as the utility easement and a conservation <br /> easement over the individual lots. <br /> Thiesse asked if the wetland is wet. <br /> Gaffron indicated there are times when it is dry. <br /> Page 16 of 35 <br />