My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
09/15/2014 Planning Commission Minutes
Orono
>
Agendas, Minutes & Packets
>
Planning Commission
>
Minutes
>
2010-2019
>
2014
>
09/15/2014 Planning Commission Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/21/2018 12:22:30 PM
Creation date
12/21/2018 12:22:23 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
59
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).
View images
View plain text
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br /> Monday, September 15,2014 <br /> 6:30 o'clock p.m. <br /> Gaffron stated during all the sketch plan reviews, the discussion was that this was going to be an RPUD <br /> rezoning. When the Comprehensive Plan was revised in 2008,it did not change this area and it is still <br /> zoned LR-1B, single family residential. Gaffron indicated the planned residential development is one of <br /> the options the City has for a development but that RPUDs and PRDs are limited to single-family <br /> detached dwellings. Gaffron stated the RPUD is probably the most logical to use in this situation. <br /> Gaffron noted the City also has an M6,multiple family,option that the City has never used but that it <br /> applies to two-family dwelling units. Under that option,the units must meet the underlying zoning <br /> district standards for a single-family dwelling,which means the double units would need to meet the one- <br /> acre zoning requirement. Gaffron stated based on that,under the current zoning, if the two-family <br /> dwelling provision is taken advantage of, a total of eight units would be allowed. In addition,the <br /> multifamily twin home use is not allowed via a PRD. Gaffron indicated there are also other regulations <br /> that would apply if the land is located within the shoreland. <br /> Mack stated regardless of what happens with this particular project before the Planning Commission <br /> tonight,he would like to make a commitment on behalf of the City to the neighborhood that the City will <br /> continue to look at the drainage problems in this area.Mack stated he is not an engineer either,but that he <br /> does know the City has the ability to go out and do what it can to solve the problems to the best of their <br /> ability by taking the steps they have available to them at this point in time. <br /> Mack stated he has discussed the situation with the street superintendent and the utility superintendent, <br /> who has a great deal of background and understanding about the situation. Mack indicated they went out <br /> last Friday and took a look at it and that the City will try to take immediate actions, if possible,this fall to <br /> replace the collapsed culvert in the hopes that will help lessen the problems. Mack indicated he is not <br /> sure whether it will solve the problems entirely but that it has to be done, including replacement of other <br /> pipes. Mack stated taking a comprehensive look at the whole area is important and that the City will do <br /> everything they possibly can to address the problem. <br /> Schoenzeit stated if the developer is planning for anything beyond the four single-family homes that <br /> would be allowed as currently zoned, he would guess that Shadywood would be a catalyst or a facilitator <br /> for improving the water issues. Schoenzeit noted the architect made mention of the fact that they would <br /> take care of their own water,but that he would suggest they give some thought to perhaps handling some <br /> Page 28 of 59 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.