Laserfiche WebLink
NIHUTBS OF THE PIAimillG COmaSSIOH TING SBPTBMBmi 19, 1988 <br /><1.11SOHING PILE «1333-REBBRS CONTIN1 <br />house, multiply that by 2, you would get a total of 6,000 s.f. <br />for 2 houses with no mounded system. Using the mounded system <br />with the same building footprint, 50% of additional vegetation <br />would be given up. Kelley asked Gaffron if 8,000 s.f. to 10,000 <br />s.f for a mound system was accurate. Gaffron stated that those <br />figures were not unrealistic. Kelley asked Jarvis how many lots, <br />including the road, there could be if the 32 acres was zoned 2~ <br />acre. Jarvis responded that they could get 16 lots. Kelley did <br />some calculations as to how the 2**acre mounded system would <br />compare to the 1-acre sewer. Kelley asked Mr. Jarvis if he had <br />performed those calculations. Jarvis answered in the negative. <br />Kelley asked the City Staff whether or not they had compared the <br />two possibilities? He questionned whether making that <br />determination would be a part of the examining process? Mr. <br />Jarvis stated that they had not received any direction from the <br />Planning Commission to present a 2-acre proposal. Mr. Jarvis <br />asked why the Planning Commission did not indicate that they <br />wanted to see that when this issue was previously presented? <br />Planning Commission member Johnson responded that was because a <br />month ago the Planning Commission was comfortable with the PRD. <br />Chairman Kelley asked if what the proposed lot size was, <br />including the open space. Mr. Kost responded 1.12 acres. Kelley <br />stated that he wanted to confirm that the lot size exceeded one <br />acre, because in a typical PRD, in that particular zoning <br />district, the actual size of the lot, plus open space, has to be <br />over the size of the zoning district. <br />Planning Commission member Bellows reiterated the fact that <br />she had no problem with the concept, it was the execution that <br />was a problem. She added that she did not disagree with the idea <br />of the property being zoned 1-acre. She did not like the way the <br />parcel was being divided. <br />Maggie Roderick, a resident at Dickey Cake Drive, expressed <br />her concern'^to be the emergency vehicle access proposed for Pine <br />Ridge Lane. She stated that Pine Ridge Lane was never intended <br />to be a through road. It was to remain a stub road for the <br />purpose of being an access onto Highway 12. Zoning Administrator <br />stated that the road was supposedly scheduled for a through road <br />through the Rebers' property, through a residential subdivision. <br />Mrs. Roderick said that she had discussed that possibility at the <br />time their property was sold and she had been told that the <br />chances of that Road going through were vague. Mabusth stated <br />that she would not have made such an affirmative representation <br />until the Rebers property was developed. Chairman Kelley asked <br />Mrs. Roderick if she had a specific concern regarding the <br />subdivision. Mrs. Roderick stated that the Planning Commission <br />had done an excellent job in upholding the rural, residential <br />aspect of Orono. She was sure that Mr. Rebers* development would <br />be beautiful, but it would add more traffic to Brown Road. If <br />Pine Ridge Lane were made a through street to Dickey Lake Drive, <br />it could potentially become an access for the public to Willow.