07-12-2004 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

liV-'1 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMM.* jION MEETING MONDAY, JUNE 2 i. 2004 6:00 o’clock p.m. per acre or more, the proposed project is being allowed to undergo sketch plan review. He described a brief site history and explained their view of the site and how it would meet a housing market segment not served in Orono. Ben Kelson distributed materials to the Planning Conunission and staff illustrating the site plan, cioss-scctions, perspectives and house type:,, lie conveyed their goal was to create a neighborhood village feel, blending old and new architectural features with low rooflincs to break the scale. Mr. Nelson stated the exterior house finishes would have stone ana color varieties with no “taupe- town" colors. Mr. Johnston explained that due to site constraints and design purposes there is some need for small lots and closeness. The sketch plan proposes 4 units per acre density with 45’ building widths and 6’ side setbacks on the garage side and 10’ side setbacks on the house side for a combined 16’ side setbacr. Mr. Johnston stated the appearance of these houses/sidc setbacks would be better than those in the recent Stonebay development. He indicated there were no plamied impacts to the large wetland on the site, though a small wetland would be mitigated. It was emphasized the proposed density is pcmiitied by the Community Management Plan (CMP) and is not at townhouse density levels. Chair Mabusth asked for infomiation about the house plans. It was explained that the house pads would be ISOO s.f with a 600 s.f. garage for 2 or 3 vehicles. Chair Mabusth asked about the structural covemge calculations. Gundlach advised that there would be about 28% structural coverage assuming an average building pad and not including the wniand acreage. Gaffron pointed out the proposed sketch plan does not fit into the average 2 5 acres house lot guided by the CMP. He recommended the Planning Commission should view the entire 50-60 acre area, which would include the Dumas ’ property, instead of evaluating the properties separately. Gundlach concurred, indicating that the proposed 4 unils/acre on the subject propeny may restrict what eventually could be done on the remainder property. Chair Mabu.sth commented that the proposed exterio' house elevations appeared attractive and there was general consensus to her comment. Page 23 of 31 ■uai