My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
11-14-1988 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
1988
>
11-14-1988 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/7/2025 9:12:02 AM
Creation date
10/7/2025 9:03:45 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.
/
336
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
14INUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OCTOBER 17, 1988 <br />ZONING PILE #1334-REBERS CONTINUED <br />Jarvis added that the 8,000 s.f. would still be within the 11,000 <br />s.f. building pad. By allowing this .25 FAR, it would give each <br />home builder flexibility. <br />Planning Commission member Bellows stated that she would <br />favor something similar to an FAR that would limit the <br />buildability of the lot. Jarvis stated that the Rebers proposal <br />already provides far more stringent setbacks than normally <br />required. Mr. Jarvis cited other examples of how the FAR would <br />aid in the preservation of the trees and natural vegetation. He <br />stated that on a 64,000 s.f. lot, the buildable area would be <br />reduced to approximately 17,000 s.f., due to the setbacks, and <br />that would allow for sufficient protection of the trees. <br />Planning Commission member Brown asked for clarification <br />regarding the side setbacks and whether the trees would remain <br />undistrubed in those locations. Jarvis stated that those areas <br />would be the no -grading, no -building, nonencroachment areas. <br />Bellows interjected that there would be no disturbance, except <br />for the driveways. Jarvis confirmed that. <br />Chairman Kelley observed that by disallowing any disturbance <br />within the proposed setback areas a homeowner would not be able <br />to lay sod to the street. Mr. Jarvis disagreed with that <br />interpretation and added that if the Planning Commission wished <br />to include that restriction they should specifically address it. <br />Mr. Jarvis thought that restriction to be excessive. Kelley <br />indicated that allowing sod to the street would contradict Mr. <br />Jarvis's statement that there could be no disturbance of trees <br />within 50' of the street. <br />Zoning Administrator Mabusth stated that the proposed <br />covenants address preservation within the woodlands preserve <br />area. The Planning Commission members read the portion of the <br />covenants that Mabusth referred to. Bellows observed that they <br />did not specifically address the size of trees that were to <br />remain or that could be removed. Planning Commission member <br />Johnson asked what the normal setbacks for a one -acre lot would <br />be. Mabusth replied 35' for the front, 10' for the side and 30' <br />for the rear. Bellows stated that she was not concerned with the <br />setbacks as much as the true preservation of the woodlands. <br />Mr. Pf laum clarified that the covenants pertained to the <br />trail system only and did not attempt address the building lots <br />themselves. Planning Commission member Bellows stated that she <br />was looking for more specific limitations with regard to the <br />building lot. Pflaum reiterated Mr. Jarvis's ideas. <br />Chairman Kelley asked for feedback from each Planning <br />Commission member regarding the size of the building pad/building <br />envelope. Planning Commission member Cohen stated that he <br />interpreted the term "building envelope" to address the house; <br />"building pad" would be a more appropriate term for referring to <br />15 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.