My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
07-12-2004 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
2004
>
07-12-2004 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/25/2023 11:21:14 AM
Creation date
1/25/2023 11:15:30 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
104
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
1 <br />MINUTES OF THE <br />ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br />MONDAY. JUNE 21, 2004 <br />6:00 o’clock p.m. <br />Chair Mabusth asked why the proposal did not include townhomes on Hwy 12. Mr. Johnston <br />explained townhomes on this site were not viable as a community. Rahn suggested the site include <br />twin-home doubles, as an option. Kempf added that he was familiar with a site in Savage that <br />included views, walkout style houses .and had adjacent less expensive housing styles sharing <br />amenities. Chair Mabusth concurred with their comments regarding the benefits of mixed residential <br />uses. <br />3. Is the issue of mixed use of single family residences and townhouses addressed? Should this <br />property develop under one single use? <br />Chair Mabusth indicated this issue had been addressed <br />4. Should the City allow the property to be developed without developing at least a ‘Vision’’ of how <br />the Dumas piece to tl.', west might be included? <br />It was a consensus there should be some kind of connection between the properties, that it should be <br />evaluated as to how the fill elevation would impact the Dumas property and existing uses to the west, <br />such as the orchard, and w'hat souvid baniers and buffers would be needed for the development. <br />Leslie and Jurgens stated they assumed there would need to be cyclone fence adjacent to tlic Hwy 12 <br />right-of-way. <br />5. If the Dumas property develops a townhouse use, arc there possibilities for negative transitions <br />through this proposed development? <br />Gundlach noted the applicant ’s intention with the dead ends at the western boundary of the plat is to <br />provide access for tlic future developniCnt of the Dumas property. There is some risk in allowing this <br />property to develop, specifically the roadway system, without at least thinking how' the Dumas <br />property might develop bearing in mind the intentions with the CMP. The CMP has guided both <br />properties for the same mixed use at an ideal overall density of 2.5 units/acre. She advised there is a <br />need to consider transitions and access issues. <br />Page 25 of 31
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.