Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br />ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br />Monday, September 16, 2016 <br />6:30 o’clock p.m. <br />_____________________________________________________________________________________ <br />  <br />Page 31 of 34  <br />  <br /> <br />McGrann asked what the width of the lots is to the left. <br /> <br />Gaffron indicated they are approximately 85 feet. <br /> <br />McGrann asked if one of the lots is 103 feet wide. <br /> <br />Gaffron stated there is one lot at 99 feet and one at 101 as you go west into Spring Park. Gaffron stated <br />there is a variety of lot sizes. <br /> <br />Stickney stated approximately 60 percent of the lots do not contain a half-acre dry buildable. <br /> <br />Landgraver stated while there is a variety of lot sizes, the range is basically 120 feet on the high side and <br />70 feet on the low and that these lot sizes appear to be in that range. <br /> <br />McGrann stated he appreciates all the commentary from the neighbors. McGrann stated the ideal <br />situation would be that the neighborhood purchases the lots so the area can remain the same but that does <br />not seem to be the situation. McGrann stated in his view it is very likely this site will be developed at <br />some point, which is the right of the property owner, and that it becomes a matter of determining what <br />works best according to City Code. McGrann asked if they require the 100 feet width, how many lots <br />would be allowed. <br /> <br />Gaffron stated if six lots are created, the width of the lots would be approximately 77 feet. Under a PRD, <br />there would be a waiving of the standards in order to create a better layout. Under a PRD concept, it is <br />likely that a number of building sites would be identified and the rest of the area would be commons area. <br />One of the advantages to doing a PRD is that the City has the opportunity to preserve more of the <br />property and perhaps place a conservation easement over portions of the site. <br /> <br />Stickney commented a tree preservation agreement would also be an option. <br /> <br />Gaffron agreed that that would be another option. Under a PRD, there would be opportunities to preserve <br />areas that are outside of the individual lots and those would become common areas that an association <br />would help maintain. <br /> <br />Leskinen asked what the lot widths are under the smiley face option. <br /> <br />Gaffron indicated there would need to be a discussion with the developer about what type of homes <br />would be constructed. Gaffron indicated his sketch is more conceptual and that it would also depend on <br />the topography. Gaffron stated the bowl shaped area near the wetland might be more conducive to <br />walkouts. <br /> <br />Landgraver asked if each lot would have their own driveway to the street. <br /> <br />Gaffron stated that is one option or perhaps they could share a driveway. <br /> <br />Landgraver stated a number of the neighbors expressed a concern about the water runoff and the <br />additional hardcover. <br /> <br />Item #01 - PC Agenda - 10/21/2013 <br />Approval of PC Minutes 09/16/2013 [Page 31 of 34]