My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
06-16-1997 Planning Commission Minutes
Orono
>
Planning Commission
>
1997
>
06-16-1997 Planning Commission Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/10/2019 2:31:00 PM
Creation date
7/10/2019 2:30:59 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
28
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).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
• <br />MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION <br />MEETING HELD ON JUNE 16, 1997 <br />!1 7 # ,I ,i 7 C tc r tir <br />(�-1_T - ;�2 2 ��.� . &rip � titers .�l�zea�.ii rlan - CvT3alaai,ie.d j <br />Waters indicated that the use of sketch plan 2 would not require a PRD. <br />Lindquist and Smith felt sketch plan 3 made most sense. <br />_M_cMfillan said she preferred either sketch plan 3 or two acre septics. She did not support <br />mixing two acre and one acre zoning. <br />Lindquist said he felt all of the lots should be sewered or not be sewered. <br />Waters said he would need to speak with the City Engineer. He noted that the septic <br />systems would not serve the public. <br />McMillan said she was concerned with removal of trees and creating more traffic. <br />Schroeder said the. perimeter bufFering is reminescent of SticrAr Wood -, in maintaining the. <br />trees. He saw sketch plan 3 as having similarities to the Sugar Woods development plan. <br />He would prefer less lots but understands the economical ramifications. Schroeder said he <br />would prefer 16 sewered lots versus following the MUSA boundary. <br />• Stoddard indicated that this would follow the concept presented in sketch plan 1 with <br />MUSA and 17 lots. Schroeder agreed but said he would prefer to see more clustering and <br />open spaces as shown in sketch plan 3. Waters acknowledged that more is accomplished <br />under sketch plan 3. <br />• <br />Stoddard inquired whether there would be demand for homes shown in sketch plan 3 <br />versus sketch plan 1. Waters said he feels that plan would work and either plan would <br />sell. He felt the difference came to tree preservation and sewer in the street that would <br />not be used in the immediate future. <br />McMillan noted that three lots in sketch plan 3 were less than 40,000 s.f, and asked the <br />reasoning behind it. Waters said the lots could be enlarged by diminishing the outlot, but <br />he was trvine to create more common areas with walking paths and eliminate creating one <br />riparian lot. He does not wish to see a boat dock but possibly a fishing dock only. <br />Schroeder indicated that a homeowners association might request such a dock for boats. <br />Gaffiron said the Shoreland Ordinance would prevent that from occurring. <br />Schroeder asked if Waters was considering walking trails. Waters said he would not want <br />hard surface trails. <br />wl <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.