05-16-2016 Planning Commission Packet

Home Browse Search

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