09-19-1988 Planning Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MUfOTBS OP THE PLAIIMIIIG COIMISSIOH TIMG SEPTEMBER 19, 1988 S0MIR6 PILE «1334~REBERS COMTINl Mr. Jarvis's arguments were persuasive in favor of a cul-de-*sac. Mr. Jarvis stated that if the Planning Commission wanted the access located on the top of the hill, he would comply. Moving the access to the top of the hill would shorten the length of the cul-de-sac approximately 400*. Planning Commission member Cohen stated that he was not favorably impressed with the proposal. He did not like the one acre aspect. He believed that the trees will be removed for the installation of pools, tennis courts, driveways, etc. He also believed that saving one life would justify either looping the street or having an emergency vehicle road installed. Mr. Platteter suggested moving the subdivision south for the purpose of accessability from Willow where there will be traffic control. If the east/west road were installed behind Little Oak Store development, that road could be used to access the Rebers* subdivision. Mr. Shardlow stated that that plan had been considered. However, that alternative was discarded because the area had always been zoned for commercial use. It was their intention to keep the commercial traffic and residential traffic separate. Chairman Kelley stated that the same argument should be made when dealing with Willow and Old Crystal Bay Roads where commercial property abuts residential property. With respect to the PRD, the through road is not a requirement. However this application, in his mind, does not meet the requirements of a PRD. A PRD is designated by the uniqueness in topography requiring special attention to benefit the entire parcel. He agreed with Planning Commission member Bellow's observations in that the PRD is being used to create the trail system. Kelley asked if specific conditions could be placed on the PRD? More Information and specifications would need to be considered before the PRD could be approved. If the PRD were approved, the applicant would come back to the Planning Commission with a set of conditions. As Mr. Shardlow noted earlier in the meeting, Mabusth reminded Kelley that they were now functioning under the new PRD, so it would come back before them automatically. Mr. Shardlow stated that there was a timing issue involved with this. The reason why this matter was being considered under the current PRD conditional use process, as opposed to the new planned development zoning district, is because it is not on the books yet. The PRD regulations for Orono only allows for flexibility in lot sizes and provides for the private open space that is the outlets. Planning Commission member Bellows asked Mr. Shardlow if the City and Planning Commission would have as much control under the current regulations as they will under those being proposed? Mr. Shardlow explained that there is a conditional use permit •m