Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br /> Monday,July18,2016 <br /> 6:30 o'clock p.m. <br /> Denman stated in their view there is a market for it and that the empty nester market is one of the more <br /> active markets at this time. <br /> Schoenzeit asked what the square footage and approximate cost would be. <br /> Denman indicated the homes would cost in the $700,000 range. <br /> Lemke asked how the Planning Commission feels about the Comprehensive Plan Amendment. <br /> McGrann indicated he is in favor of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment. <br /> Schoenzeit stated in his view the lower density reduces the City's options and kicks the can further down <br /> the road. Schoenzeit stated in his view the proposal makes sense for this site if they do not take into <br /> consideration the City's higher density goals and that it is the best one for this site that has been presented <br /> to the City in years. <br /> Lemke asked whether the Planning Commission feels RPUD zoning is an appropriate option for this <br /> development. <br /> Leskinen stated if the site is to be rezoned,the RPUD option provides the City with the highest degree of <br /> control over what happens on the property. <br /> Lemke stated in his view it is more appropriate for residential rather than commercial since it is some <br /> distance from the business district. <br /> Lemke asked if the Commission is comfortable with the level of flexibility being requested,recognizing <br /> RPUD standards requires a significant level of development flexibility. <br /> Schoenzeit stated it allows the best use of the total site,especially given the large wetland on the property. <br /> Lemke asked if the Commission is comfortable moving the project forward recognizing that the <br /> engineering, stormwater and landscaping plan have not been fully vetted. <br /> McGrann stated that is one of his concerns given the number of trees that would be removed. <br /> Schoenzeit stated in order for the next step to be taken, additional details on the landscaping are required <br /> and that it would behoove the developer to add the category of what is not being taken away in the buffer <br /> zone. Schoenzeit stated as it is shown currently, it looks as though the entire treed area is being removed. <br /> Lemke noted a detailed landscape plan is the one thing that has not been submitted by the developer. <br /> McGrann stated the tree removal will likely be an issue with the neighborhood. <br /> Olson asked if there is some way to have a stop gap measure in place to ensure that the trees are not <br /> removed without a replacement plan. <br /> Barnhart indicated the Planning Commission can comment on their concern in their motion regarding the <br /> tree removal if they are comfortable moving the application forward without the landscape plan. <br /> Page 13 of 19 <br />