Laserfiche WebLink
I MINiJTES OF T'�iE <br /> OROl�i4 PLANNiNG COMMISSIO?1i MEETII�IG <br /> Monday,Apri118,201b <br /> 6:30 o'clock p.m. <br /> Barnhart stabe�the FAR provides more options than the 15 percent and would probably result in homes <br /> with a lower height. Barnhart stated Staff is looking for feedback on tlus item from the public and that <br /> there will be additional discussion at a future work session. Barnhert stated Staff is wondering whet�er <br /> they should move forward both of the options or j ust one. <br /> Landgraver stated it comes dawn to 15 percent versus ti�e FAR and the definition of grade. Landgraver <br /> indicated he would be willing to table it to the next work session. <br /> Curtis asked if there is anything the Planning Commission would Iike to see from Staff to help facilitate <br /> the next discussion. <br /> Thiesse stated the FAR is being crafted to match the 1 S perceut as olase as possible, <br /> Landgraver stated he is trying to visusl what the difference would be betw�en the two. <br /> Curtis indicated Staff can provide some illustratione that will help demonstrate that. Curtis stated Staff <br /> would like the Planning Commissian to consider weys in which the massing cat�be reduced but also <br /> provide some laeway in how someone can use their prop�rf.y. <br /> Schoenzeit stated another question to cc�nxidsr would be wha�a vuiance would look likc undcr the FAR <br /> option. <br /> G�tis stated the City does not grant very maay structu�ooverage variances and that the FAR will be a <br /> different concept for Staff to use. <br /> Thiesse asked if there is e reason to�ay at the 2-acn size. <br /> Curtis stated the thinking is 1�at there wiIl be a high end of ti�e break point aad that Staff is trying to stay <br /> with a similar amount of footprint tis�t wclµld bc allowed. <br /> Barnhst#�ted there is a�-off ir�order to make tl�e concept a little easier to understand for the <br /> applicazrt ar:d that some prapo�ty awners will benefit and soma will not. The City will have to accept <br /> those trade�ffi ift�e change t�e massing t+egulations. <br /> Landgraver movad,Thiesae seconded,to table Applicatian'�To. 16-3815,City of Orono Zoning Code <br /> Amendmeat rega�the definitiari of helf�tory. VOTE: Ayes 5,�Tays 0. <br /> 7. #16-3823 GTTY O�'OR4NU,ZONII�G CODE AME�TDMENT REGARDIlVG A PROCESS <br /> TO REVI�W C0ITCEPT PLArFS AND SKETCH PLA1�S, 10:27 P.M.—10:31 P.NL <br /> Barnhart stated this item ranlced 10 in the list of ordinances to review. Staff has dra.fted an ordinance that <br /> establishes a concept review process for zoning code amendments,zoning map amendments, land use <br /> amendmenEs,and other things that are more policy in nature. The Council and Planning Commission <br /> should provide feedback on the concept plan review process. <br /> The ordinance alsv removes the requirement that a C1ass III subdivision go ti�rough the sketch plan <br /> process. The sketch plan process is recommemded but Staff has removed that as a requirement to help <br /> meet the I20�ay time limit <br /> Page 29 of 32 <br />