My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
09-15-1997 Planning Packet
Orono
>
Planning Commission
>
1997
>
09-15-1997 Planning Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/6/2023 10:10:36 AM
Creation date
9/6/2023 10:01:59 AM
Metadata
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
476
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
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION <br />MEETING HELD ON JUNE 16, 1997 <br />(#13 - #2240 Tun Waters Sketch Plan - Continued) <br />Waters indicated that the use of sketch plau 2 would not require a PRD. <br />Lindquist and Smith feh sketch plan 3 made most sense. <br />McMillan said she preferred either sketch plan 3 or two acre sepUcs. She did not support <br />mhdng two acTC and one acre zoning. <br />T mrtqiiigt said hc fcH 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 traflSc. <br />Schroeder said the perimeter buffering h remine-Scent of Sugar Woods 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 hc <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 wiA <br />MUSA and 17 lots. Schroeder agreed but said he would prefer to see more clusteri^ and <br />open spaces as shown in sketch plan 3. Waters acknowledged that more is accomplished <br />under sketch plan 3. <br />Stoddard inquired whether there would he demand for homes shown in sketch plan 3 <br />versus sketch plan 1. Waters said he feels that plan would work and cither 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 tuture. <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 trying 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 />Gafifron said the Shoreland Ordinance would prevem that from occurring. <br />Schroeder asked if Waters was considering walking trails. Waters said he would not want <br />hard surface trails. <br />21 <br />-r <br />« t nr
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.