Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br /> Monday,May 17,2010 <br /> 6:30 o'clock p.m. <br /> (#10-3460 COMMONBOND COMMUNITIES,PRELIMNARY PLAT AND RPUD,CONT.) <br /> and would not be looking for a subsidy from the City at this point. In addition, CommonBond would be <br /> paying all of the required city fees. <br /> Schoenzeit stated that typically more of these questions are answered before the application is moved <br /> forward to the City Council. <br /> Feuss moved,Rahn seconded,Application#10-3460,CommonBond Communities,to table the <br /> application pending the submittal of additional information to address the issues discussed tonight. <br /> Curtis stated the issues that should be resolved include reducing the number of variances. Curtis <br /> requested the Planning Commission give clear direction to the applicant on the variances. Initially the <br /> applicant came to the City with a conceptual plan. Curtis noted this is a tw�step process,consisting of <br /> the RPUD,the rezoning, and the preliminary plat application. In some cases there is a third step,which is <br /> the precursor step consisting of a sketch plan,which was brought before the Planning Commission at its <br /> April meeting. <br /> The applicant was also asked by Staff to provide additional information relating to the final master plan <br /> submittal, and a majority of that has been accomplished. The applicant has submitted the information <br /> required for an RPUD rezoning and preliminary plat application. Typically the additional information is <br /> requested at the final planning stage. Curtis noted the Planning Commission will review this application <br /> again as part of the master plan application and that it is not intended to be a fully complete application <br /> tonight. <br /> Schoenzeit stated based on the public comment and the Commissioner's observations,there are a number <br /> of issues relating to the wetlands,roads,setbacks, and parking that need to be addressed. Schoenzeit <br /> commented there is a lot of inerit to the project but the Planning Commission is being asked to approve <br /> something that is proposing too much for the site. <br /> Rahn commented in his view the Planning Commission has provided sufficient direction to the applicant <br /> on the issues that should be addressed. <br /> Schoenzeit noted it is the decision of the applicant to either have the Planning Commission table their <br /> application or vote on their application. <br /> Curtis directed the Planning Commission to Exhibit H. Curtis noted there are six requirements listed <br /> there for the preliminary plat and 14 requirements for the master development plan. The concept plan <br /> steps asks for approximate building locations,type and square footage of specific land uses, a generalized <br /> grading area, and staging and timing of the development. Staff did request submittal of information over <br /> and above that for this application. <br /> Rahn noted they do not lrnow the exact number of units being proposed,the access requirements for the <br /> fire deparhnent,the wetland buffer encroachments and other items. Rahn indicated he would like to see a <br /> plan that is more compliant with City Codes. <br /> Schoenzeit stated the Planning Commission can discuss the six points. <br /> PAGE 18 <br />