Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br /> Tuesday,February 19,2013 <br /> 6:30 o'clock p.m. <br /> Pat Thull,210 North Shore Drive, illustrated her property on the overhead. Thull indicated she is glad to <br /> see the tree buffer preserved but that they are not proposing a tree buffer between their property and this <br /> development. Since their patio is very close to the property line and their house is located uphill from this <br /> development, it would be nice not to have to look down on the homes. Thull stated she would like some <br /> consideration given to some trees being planted in that area since this development changes the existing <br /> environment. <br /> Thull stated in order to accommodate the people who have been living there, she would like to see more <br /> of a buffer between the current buildings around the properly. According to the aerial view,there are no <br /> trees and she does not understand why that is being called a tree buffer. <br /> Chair Schoenzeit closed the public hearing at 7:13 p.m. <br /> Schoenzeit stated the point about mixing a new development with an old neighborhood is a good point <br /> and one that the Planning Commission should review. <br /> Berg asked if there are any trees at this time in that area. <br /> Thull indicated there are not. <br /> Schoenzeit asked if the developer is amenable to planting some trees in that area. <br /> Coffman stated the aerial does depict some trees between this development and the Wachman property. <br /> The Wachmans have owned the property for 20 years and were there prior to many of the other homes in <br /> the area. Coffman indicated they are certainly willing to take a look at planting some additional trees <br /> along the edge to strengthen that buffer in an effort to be a good neighbor. <br /> Schoenzeit asked if that would be satisfactory. <br /> Thull indicated she would appreciate that. , <br /> Landgraver asked if Staff has any other items they would like the Planning Commission to discuss. <br /> Curtis indicated at this point it appears the applicant has addressed a number of the issues in their new <br /> submittal of information and that she would encourage the Planning Commission to reiterate the direction <br /> they would like the applicant to follow. <br /> Schoenzeit stated in following the recommendations of Staff and the City Engineer,the Planning <br /> Commission would like to see zero variances other than the cul-de-sac length. In addition,the Planning <br /> Commission would like to see the developer include the invasive species cataloguing and proposed <br /> removals,the granting of the requested trail easement, and ensuring that the design conservation report is <br /> detailed as to the negative aspects that need to be corrected and the positive features that need to be <br /> preserved, Schoenzeit stated the Planning Commission heard some compelling reasons against removing <br /> the curb cut for the neighbor that is not part of the development and adding some more trees to the buffer <br /> as proposed for other areas. <br /> Coffinan indicated he is agreeable with that. <br /> Page 9 of 23 <br />