My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
06/21/2004 Planning Commission Minutes
Orono
>
Planning Commission
>
2004
>
06/21/2004 Planning Commission Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/9/2012 11:01:54 AM
Creation date
3/9/2012 11:01:54 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
23
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 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br /> MONDAY, JUNE 21, 2004 <br /> 6:00 o'clock p.m. <br /> (9. #04-3027 Brenshall Development on behalf of Thomas James Properties, LLC, SW Corner <br /> of Old Crystal Bay Road and Highway 12, Sketch Plan—continued) <br /> Chair Mabusth stated her position that the proposed sketch plan needs to reduce building pad sizes, to <br /> provide areas for the future decks or outside play areas, and asked if the three-stall garage was a <br /> necessity in this density neighborhood. Mr. Johnston replied that often the third garage stall reduces <br /> potential outside storage problems. <br /> Chair Mabusth requested the applicants to show proposed house decks on the sketch plan. <br /> There was consensus to not permit any outside storage at all at this density. Friztler added that there <br /> should be no antennas allowed. <br /> Chair Mabusth summarized that the Planning Commission had serious concerns about the proposed <br /> density for the sketch plan. <br /> Leslie observed that there appears to be an underlying conflict of interest between indicating the City <br /> desires to have higher density housing development and a discussion that is indicating anything but <br /> describing lower density neighborhoods. Trying to establish parameters without context for <br /> appropriate standards,what is marketable or viable could result in a developer agreeing to standards <br /> that result in a failed neighborhood. He suggested that a planning consultant should be hired to <br /> advise the City in the development of appropriate guidelines and standards. Leslie summarized that <br /> he thought the dialogue was more about not knowing what is not wanted, not about what is a viable <br /> plan. <br /> Gaffron added that staff supports the hiring of a planning consultant to assist in the process. Mr. <br /> Johnston mentioned that already two months have elapsed out of the six-month moratorium and <br /> asked what was its status. Gaffron explained the City Council and Planning Commission need to set <br /> a date for a visioning session, hopefully with a planning consultant. He indicated that it is unlikely <br /> the process would be completed by the end of the original 6 months timeline. <br /> Jurgens commented that the housing styles, expanded exterior color range, landscaping and public <br /> gathering spaces were all positives. However, he also was unsure about accepting the proposed <br /> density and did not support the shorter driveways with vehicles extending over the sidewalk. Chair <br /> Mabusth and Rahn concurred with Jurgens' comments. <br /> Chair Mabusth concluded the discussion by repeating the request for a concept design for the Dumas <br /> property when the matter returns to the Planning Commission. <br /> PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS <br /> 10. REPORT OF PLANNING COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVES ATTENDING CITY <br /> COUNCIL MEETINGS MAY 24, 2004 AND JUNE 14, 2004. <br /> Fritzler reported on the May 24, 2004 City Council meeting indicating that all Planning Commission <br /> matters went on the Consent Agenda. Chair Mabusth reported that the Reliance Development <br /> (Stonebay Commercial PUD) and the O'Shaughnessy shoreland restoration with boardwalk <br /> Page 20 of 22 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.