Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br /> Monday,April 18, 2016 <br /> 6:30 o'clock p.m. <br /> Chair Leskinen closed the public hearing at 10:11 p.m. <br /> Thiesse noted he had to leave the work session early and that when he left the Planning Commission was <br /> discussing Option 2. Thiesse asked what the discussion at the work session was regarding Option 2. <br /> Leskinen stated both options would remove the number of stories limitation. The biggest difference <br /> between Option 1 and Option 2 is keeping the 15 percent structural footprint under Option 1. In addition, <br /> Option 1 has the graduated setback and Option 2 has the FAR. <br /> Curtis stated Staff would still recommend a 2-acre cap. <br /> Schoenzeit stated this change will increase the massing on smaller lots and that the current regulations <br /> help to control some of that. Schoenzeit stated if the City is trying to control the massing on a lot,the <br /> current regulations are doing a pretty good job. Schoenzeit stated the numbers in Option 2are definitely <br /> an expansion of what was previously allowed. <br /> Thiesse stated his idea of the City's philosophy is that some lots are not large enough to construct a big <br /> house on. <br /> Schoenzeit stated the question is whether it is going to be half the square feet on the second level but that <br /> in general going to the floor area ratio is an expansion of the building. <br /> Thiesse asked whether it would make it easier for a contractor if Option 1 is considered with removal of <br /> the number of stories. <br /> Curtis stated designin�and determining the half-story is very cumbersome and sometimes requires two <br /> Staff people to do it since they can be talking about multiple angles on the homes and rooflines. <br /> Schoenzeit stated simply measuring from the outside of the structure might be the simplification. <br /> Curtis stated at some point,based on the lot size, when the structure is put to an FAR,the house will be <br /> lower in the ground. Curtis stated the 15 percent footprint drives the house to be constructed up on a <br /> small lot. <br /> Schoenzeit stated even at the 30-foot height restriction, a walkout house can go up to 40 feet in height if <br /> they meet the basement definition. <br /> Barnhart stated the idea behind the FAR was that Staff thought it would be the equivalent of a three-story <br /> building with no attempt to try to reduce that. Barnhart stated the FAR idea would speak to that goal. <br /> Leskinen stated if the Planning Commission is leaning towards Option 2, they should discuss what <br /> happens under the roof and what happens to the big open space when someone wants to extend the floor <br /> and how that counts. <br /> Schoenzeit stated he thought the Planning Commission was leaning mare towards Option 1 and that he is <br /> not necessarily convinced that the FAR is going to result in more ramblers. <br /> Page 28 of 32 <br />