My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
06/15/2015 Planning Commission Minutes
Orono
>
Planning Commission
>
2015
>
06/15/2015 Planning Commission Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/12/2016 10:32:36 AM
Creation date
1/12/2016 10:32:30 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
53
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 <br /> ORONO PLANivING COMMISSION MEETING <br /> Monday,June 15,2015 <br /> 6:30 o'clock p.m. <br /> Gaffron indicated they were detached units. <br /> Thiesse asked how the Metropolitan Council feels about Orono not continually meeting their density <br /> standards. <br /> Gaffron indicated he does not know how the Metropolitan Council will react. <br /> Landgraver asked if the City has to hit a certain number per acre. <br /> Gaffron stated Metropolitan Council's direction is that the City should guide enough land to a certain <br /> density to accommodate the amount of density that Met Council would like to see. <br /> Thiesse asked if the City has to reguide something else if they do not meet that density. <br /> Gaffron stated he is not aware of a specific requirement that says the City must follow the guided density <br /> but that the City has to at least make it possible by guiding enough acreage in different properties at a <br /> higher density. <br /> Schoenzeit noted they are above three units per acre, so they would be able to get city sewer. <br /> Gaffron indicated that is correct. <br /> Schoenzeit asked if the developer is aware of the RPUD requirement and the 10 percent recreation <br /> amenity. Schoenzeit stated it seems like it would be a nonstarter if the developer does not meet the major <br /> standards required under a RPUD. <br /> Gaffron stated the question is what kind of development can be accomplished with somewhat higher <br /> densities. Gaffron noted a PRD relies on the underlying zoning districts for standards and that City will <br /> need to look at that underlying zoning district and possibly rezone it. Gaffron stated the RPUD district <br /> has a set of standards for multi-family units and a different set of standards for single-family, individual, <br /> detached units, and this layout does not match those standards. Gaffron stated it could be argued that the <br /> RPUD does not allow for this type of density, but it does have a flexibility clause that says the standards <br /> can be changed within the RPUD to fit the density and the type of development the City would like to see. <br /> Schoenzeit asked how many square feet one of those units would be. <br /> Gaffron indicated it would be best if the developer answers those questions. <br /> Tom Gonyea, Estate Development Corporation, stated there are a number of site constraints to this <br /> property with the roads,the larger than normal setbacks, and the wetlands. Gonyea stated in their view <br /> this is a product that fits the market preriy good. Gonyea indicated they have worked with Staff quite a <br /> bit on the sketch plan and that this property is zoned for higher density, which is why they thought this <br /> product would fit good on this site. <br /> Ian Peterson, David Weekley Homes, stated the square footage for a single-level plan,without a <br /> basement, would be in the range of 2,000 to 2,400 square feet. A two-story home would probably start <br /> around 2,400 square feet up to approximately 3,100 square feet. <br /> Page 49 of 53 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.