My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
04-18-2016 Planning Commission Minutes
Orono
>
Agendas, Minutes & Packets
>
Planning Commission
>
Minutes
>
2010-2019
>
2016
>
04-18-2016 Planning Commission Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 2:54:05 PM
Creation date
8/24/2016 2:54:01 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
32
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).
View images
View plain text
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br /> Monday, April 18,2016 <br /> 6:30 o'clock p.m. <br /> Leskinen asked if the Planning Commissioners are okay with the rezoning to RPUD. Leskinen stated in <br /> her view the RPUD makes the most sense for this particular property and provides the most flexibility. <br /> Schoenzeit stated the 250-foot setback on the corner lot is not an issue in his mind. <br /> Gaffron stated he does not believe it would be a huge implication and that they could call it out as a <br /> variance to the RPUD standards. <br /> Thiesse asked what the intent of the 250-foot setback is. <br /> Gaffron stated at the time the RPUD standards were adopted,the 250-foot setback for RPUD from lakes <br /> was to limit visual and environmental impacts to the lake. Gaffron noted those impacts can be handled in <br /> other ways, such as stormwater ponding ar rain gardens. <br /> Thiesse stated based on the intent of the setback, he is comfortable with reducing the setback for that lot. <br /> Leskinen asked if the entire site should be rezoned at this time and whether the City would still have <br /> flexibility for the potential mitigation of Phase 2. <br /> Gaffron indicated they would and that it could be similar to what occurred in Stone Bay. Gaffron stated <br /> the entire site could be rezoned to RPUD, with standards just being set at this time far Phase 1. <br /> Schoenzeit and Landgraver agreed that is a good way to proceed. <br /> Leskinen asked if the Planning Commission feels the road should be public or private. <br /> Landgraver stated what he heard is that one possibility is that higher density housing will be developed in <br /> Phase 2 and that there might also be a park, which would influence the decision on whether the road <br /> should be public or private. <br /> Schoenzeit stated another question is whether there will be a homeowners association that will be doing <br /> the snow plowing, which is not a public road situation. <br /> Campion stated the intent would be to have a homeowners association and that there would be common <br /> plowing. <br /> Gaffron stated the Comprehensive Plan suggests at this high density that it should be a public road but yet <br /> in projects such as Stone Bay, the City made those roads private. Part of the reason for that was the <br /> narrowness of the road and no on-street parking. Gaffron stated it would have been difficult for the City <br /> to maintain those roads due to the narrowness. <br /> Landgraver stated based on potential future public use,the western road would logically be a public road. <br /> Gaffron stated the ability to make it a public road in that section would make sense. Gaffron stated if it is <br /> a private road, the City would still be looking for underlying road and utiliry easements. Gaffron noted in <br /> order for it to be a public road, the corridor would need to be 50 feet and that the applicant is only <br /> proposing a 40-foot corridor, which is another reason to make the road private. <br /> Page 20 of 32 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.