Laserfiche WebLink
NIVOTBS OF THE PIANNIHG COMMISSION TING OCTOBER 17, 1988 <br />ZONING FILE #1334-REBERS CONTINUED <br />the building area. Kelley agreed. Cohen suggested that whatever <br />Percentage the Planning Commission felt was appropriate for the <br />building pad, include the accessory structures as well. Cohen <br />added that the building footprint should be predetermined. <br />Kelley^ stated that he would have a hard time specifying that. <br />The building pad was already pre-established because of the <br />required setbacks for each lot. He did not believe that the home <br />builder should be limited as to where within that pad he would <br />place the house. Kelley did want a parentage defined as to how <br />much of the pad would be buildable. Cohen agreed and added that <br />the percentage should include everything, the driveway, tennis <br />courts, the house and garage. <br />Mr. Jarvis reiterated that the setbacks already allowed for <br />substantial preservation within the lot. He did not feel that <br />allowing a percentage of the building pad would be reasonable, <br />but rather a percentage of the entire lot. Planning Commission <br />member Bellows suggested that the percentage of buildability <br />would need to be approximately 50% to 75% of the building pad if <br />the percentage were based on the pad. Planning Commission member <br />Cohen asked why such a high percentage would be appropriate. <br />Bellows explained that the house size that would be allowed using <br />50% of the pad, would not be very large. She was afraid that <br />placing such restrictions would encourage smaller, more poorly <br />designed homes. She stated that Mr. Jarvis's recommendation of <br />25% of the lot would be more appropriate. She suggested that as <br />opposed to the FAR however, that the 25% be looked upon in the <br />same fashion as hardcover. Bellows said the main question would <br />be whether to allow 25% of the lot or 75% of the pad. Allowing <br />for 75% buildability of the pad would be the most restrictive in <br />terms of tree preservation. Kelley and Cohen concurred that 75% <br />of the pad would be the most effective way to preserve the <br />maximum trees. Planning Commission member Johnson disagreed and <br />stated that 50/50 would be more reasonable and would allow more <br />flexibility for the builders. <br />The next item to be addressed was the issue of the driveway. <br />Mr. Jarvis stated that he did not want the driveway to be <br />included within the 75% buildability of the pad. Kelley asked <br />about the proposed provisions for vegetation removal within the <br />designated setback areas. Jarvis said that his intent was that <br />no trees be chopped down, but if a homeowner wished to remove <br />shrubbery or install sod in those areas they could do so. Kelley <br />asked how the 50' front setback should deal with the driveway and <br />^ Planning Commission member Cohen suggested setting a <br />specific footage limitation on the size of the driveway. Kelley <br />suggested that the 50' front setback be excluded from the <br />restrictions of tree removal. Cohen stated that he was aware of <br />areas in Orono where trees ove^ 1" in diameter were marked and so <br />designated to remain forever. He suggested such a procedure be <br />used in this case. Cohen asked if the driveway could not be <br />included within the 75% buildability of the pad.