Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br />ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION <br />Monday, September 21, 2020 <br />6:00 o’clock p.m. <br />_____________________________________________________________________________________ <br /> <br />Page 3 of 6 <br /> <br />safety, kind of sequestering the playground within the neighborhood rather than having it on the outside. <br />He said he’s dealt with engineers regarding that with frequency, especially when there are two <br />thoroughfares that are quite busy, and noted there are carbon monoxide and sulfur dioxide concentrations <br />are extremely high at those intersections. He noted it’s much safer for children who are outside playing to <br />be away from that and in the corridor of the neighborhood. <br />Mr. Saddiqui said it’s an excellent question, in his 37 years of doing this work this is the first time <br />someone has asked it. He stated he would start paying attention to it going forward and haven’t done that <br />particular research with their engineers. <br />Erickson asked regarding the street width between units, it is 24 feet as shown, and when he looks at it as <br />a townhome project, the way it is drawn, it looks like there would be 24 feet of pavement. If compared to <br />residential standards, there might be 24 feet of pavement on a 50 foot right-of-way. He noted outside his <br />house, he has 18 feet of pavement, even though it’s a 30 foot right-of-way, and if he is looking at it <br />correctly, he thinks “oh wow, it would be nice if he had 24 feet of pavement.” He also noticed they are <br />honoring the 20 foot driveway and that length is good for guest parking and so on. Both of those aspects <br />of the project look pretty good to him. He also agrees with Libby that an internal playground might be <br />more marketable in this unsafe world we live in. <br />Chair Ressler noted right now they’re asking questions and asked if they need to open up a public <br />hearing. <br />Barnhart replied it’s not a public hearing, but they can open it up for public comment if they’d like. <br />Kirchner shared one thing he struggles with is the setbacks and the density, as it seems they’ve guided <br />this to be far more units, and knows they went back to the drawing board, reduced the units and they’re <br />still struggling with the setbacks. Realistically one could drop a large building in the center, meet the <br />setbacks and go vertical, however historically, the City of Orono doesn’t support or appreciate that. He <br />thinks what the Applicants have done here is trying to find a way to accommodate and still make it a <br />viable project for them. He also sees some of the concern of being 15 feet off those major roadways. <br />Kirchner understands it is not official by any means, but he appreciates that the appearance would fit in <br />with the area, neighborhood and location. He also likes the way it’s designed with the rear-load garages <br />towards the rear, so as you’re walking past, one would be looking at the front of a home, rather than a big <br />sheet of pavement with a driveway. He noted the top lot seems to be a point of contention, which perhaps <br />echoes Mr. Barnhart’s feedback; Kirchner thinks Building 40-43 on the North and South of that building <br />being included in that recreational space, he doesn’t know if it’s necessary to get to that 10% coverage <br />and if it’s there just to get to the 10% coverage, he doesn’t really love the idea as it just runs alongside the <br />buildings and there is no definitive line of it being the side-yard versus incorporated in with the <br />recreational area. <br />Mr. Saddiqui noted they do meet the 10% requirement, and the intent of bringing the concept in front of <br />the Commission is to understand and see how they can make the project viable for both the City to accept <br />and what they would leave behind as a David Weekley product. He noted they are extremely proud of <br />what they do and they don’t look for cutting corners and just trying to make a buck out of it. He <br />reiterated that is not the intent of David Weekley nor the culture within the company, which is why he <br />was upfront with them that if it didn’t work for the Board, they can go down to 35-38 units. Because this <br />is a PUD, they have the luxury to adjust in terms of the setbacks that would give what the original