My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
03/16/2015 Planning Commission Minutes
Orono
>
Agendas, Minutes & Packets
>
Planning Commission
>
Minutes
>
2010-2019
>
2015
>
03/16/2015 Planning Commission Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/27/2018 2:12:12 PM
Creation date
12/27/2018 2:12:08 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
30
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,March 16,2015 <br /> 6:30 o'clock p.m. <br /> Gaffron noted it is guided two to three units per acre and it does not specify single or multi-housing. At <br /> three acres with three acres,that would be 2.7 units per acre. <br /> Leskinen pointed out that what is it guided for and what it is zoned are two different things. The second <br /> question is whether the site meets the criteria for development via RPUD of a site less than five acres in <br /> area. Leskinen stated based on the criteria for the development,the only item that was a possibility was <br /> that it provides a transition. Leskinen stated potentially due to the topography of the site,the clustering of <br /> the buildings would make it a candidate, but not necessarily so close to the lake. <br /> Schoenzeit stated the topography meets the criteria. <br /> Leskinen stated the third question is whether the proposed twinhome use and clustered layout allow for a <br /> development that is no more intense in potential impacts than development under a single-family concept. <br /> Leskinen stated in her view this development will increase the neighborhood impacts on traffic and <br /> flooding. <br /> Landgraver stated he does not know whether it would impact the flooding but that it would definitely <br /> impact the transportation and safety issues. <br /> Lemke stated from a visual impact, this development does not make that much difference since there <br /> could be large residential homes on that site. <br /> Leskinen stated the impacts to the neighborhood or general area are traffic, flooding, and safety. <br /> Schoenzeit stated he would be in agreement and that this development might have a bigger impact than <br /> single-family homes. <br /> Leskinen stated question number four is whether the proposed development provides for a suitable <br /> transition between the abutting residential and commercial uses that exist or are likely to be developed in <br /> the future. Leskinen stated while it is a transition, she is not convinced that it is necessary to be this type <br /> of a development. Leskinen stated any type of a development can be a transition. <br /> McGrann stated he would consider it a transition if there was a road from Kelly up into the commercial <br /> area. McGrann stated if you look at it as a traffic transition, he would say no. <br /> Landgraver stated if the City knew that the area near Shadywood was going to be guided toward multiple <br /> use,that would be one thing. <br /> Schoenzeit stated it is a potential transition. <br /> Leskinen stated it could be a suitable transition. <br /> McGrann questioned whether a group of buildings makes it a transition as someone is going from <br /> Shadywood onto Kelly Avenue. <br /> Leskinen indicated she is reading it as the development as a whole and the type of use. <br /> McGrann stated he thinks of the transition from commercial to multi-family to residential. <br /> Page 14 of 30 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.