02-16-2021 Planning Commission Packet

Home Browse Search

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