Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br />ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br />Monday, November 18, 2013 <br />6:30 o’clock p.m. <br />_____________________________________________________________________________________ <br />  <br />Page 16 of 35  <br />  <br />Gaffron stated in this view, if this developer constructs all the homes, it would be fine. If another <br />contractor ends up building the homes and constructs something different, there is a risk the homes could <br />be constructed right up to the front. <br /> <br />Thiesse asked whether any requirements could be placed on the development requiring that the homes be <br />pushed further back. <br /> <br />Gaffron indicated it would be difficult to do. <br /> <br />Landgraver stated in his view the Planning Commission should ask for that. <br /> <br />Thiesse stated he does not want to just set a number without some input from the developer. <br /> <br />Abbott stated that would happen more so on Lot 3. Due to the buffer to the creek, the back yards are also <br />very tight. Abbott indicated the owners of Lot 5 would like to be pushed further back. If all the homes <br />are pushed back, it would reduce the back of the lots and would lower the value of the lots. <br /> <br />Landgraver stated pushing the homes back further from the street would help to reduce massing along the <br />street. <br /> <br />Leskinen concurred that pushing the homes back would lessen the massing impact along the street. <br /> <br />Thiesse noted there are only three homes being proposed in that area. Thiesse indicated he is happy with <br />where they are given the size of the homes and that in his view there is sufficient room for snow storage. <br /> <br />McGrann stated he is in agreement with Commissioner Thiesse. <br /> <br />Gaffron noted the code technically says that if there is frontage on the road and the cul-de-sac, the <br />driveway should be on the road. <br /> <br />Gaffron stated the Planning Commission should discuss the fact that three of the lots have less than the <br />required contiguous dry area. <br /> <br />It was the consensus of the Planning Commission that that is not an issue for this development. <br /> <br />Gaffron asked if the Planning Commission is in favor of going with the 15 percent structural coverage <br />limit versus the floor area ratio. <br /> <br />It was the consensus of the Planning Commission to recommend the 15 percent structural coverage limit. <br /> <br />Gaffron asked if the Planning Commission would like to see Outlot A become part of the trail system. <br />Currently being proposed is a trail easement in the same area as the utility easement and a conservation <br />easement over the individual lots. <br /> <br />Thiesse asked if the wetland is wet. <br /> <br />Gaffron indicated there are times when it is dry. <br /> <br />Item #01 - PC Agenda - 01/21/14* <br />Approval of Planning Commission Minutes 11/18/2013 <br />[Page 16 of 35]