Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br /> Monday,March 16,2015 <br /> 6:30 o'clock p.m. <br /> Leskinen stated Question No. 5 is,will the site be adequately served by existing police and fire services <br /> and are existing roads and utility infrastructure sufficient to serve the development. Leskinen stated in <br /> her view the development will be adequately served by existing police and fire services but that in her <br /> view this question might relate more to the density. <br /> Leskinen stated Question No. 6 is, will the proposed development be expected to generate excessive <br /> demand for public services at public cost. <br /> Berg stated it possibly could. <br /> Leskinen stated it possibly could but that she does not know if she fully agrees with that. <br /> Berg stated there is a greater chance the area could flood, which would create a greater demand for public <br /> services. <br /> Leskinen stated Question No. 7 reads, is the proposed development of the property compatible with the <br /> surrounding area and neighborhood. Can sufficient existing site vegetation be preserved on the property <br /> and maintained in its natural state so as to have minimal negative impacts. Is the developer willing to <br /> plant coniferous trees along the south side of the twinhome dwellings to minimize the dwelling exterior <br /> elevation massing impacts of views from the south and to establish covenants for permanent preservation <br /> of that screening. <br /> Leskinen stated visually it may possibly be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. <br /> Schoenzeit stated the development should blend in. <br /> Berg stated as it looks currently on the plans, it does not appear to. <br /> Lemke stated if there was vegetation superimposed on the drawing,the development would not have as <br /> much impact. <br /> Schoenzeit stated four buildings exactly alike do not fit in the neighborhood. <br /> Leskinen asked how the Planning Commission feels about Question No. 8,which reads: Will the <br /> developer agree to restrictions with regard to subdivision entryway signage along Kelly Avenue in order <br /> to minimize any negative visual impacts to the existing single-family detached residential neighborhood <br /> character. Leskinen noted the Planning Commission has not gotten into the specifics of that. <br /> Gaffron stated if the Planning Commission is comfortable with their findings, Staff would be fine with the <br /> Planning Commission making a recommendation. <br /> Schoenzeit moved,McGrann seconded,to recommend denial of Application No. 14-3686,John <br /> Bessesen and Tom Wasmoen on behalf of David Delaney,2500 Kelly Avenue,for rezoning based on <br /> this evening's discussion and the plan as presented. <br /> Leskinen asked if Staff needs specific findings included in the motion. <br /> Page 15 of 30 <br />