Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br />ORONO CITY PLANNING COMMISSION <br />Monday, October 21, 2013 <br />6:30 o’clock p.m. <br />_____________________________________________________________________________________ <br />  <br />Page 14 of 42  <br />  <br /> <br />Gaffron indicated there is not that much room on Lot 6 before it affects the trees in that area but that it <br />could go back approximately 20 to 25 feet. <br /> <br />Thiesse noted at the last meeting the neighbor located next to the proposed driveway had expressed a <br />concern about the house being too far back on that lot given the close proximity of the driveway to his <br />home. <br /> <br />McGrann asked where the existing home is located. <br /> <br />Gaffron indicated the existing home is more towards the front of the property. <br /> <br />George Stickney stated he represents the Slechta family, and that they have attempted to really listen to <br />the Planning Commission’s suggestions from the prior meeting. Stickney stated as a developer, the <br />creation of an association for the entire back portion of the property would be somewhat of a headache <br />since these would be individual lots with their own driveways that would be contained within a different <br />homeowners association. <br /> <br />Stickney stated he has found in the past that they could create a development that would restrict that land <br />to each homeowner to the point that it is their property and it is theirs to maintain but they would have a <br />covenant that is filed with the deed to preserve the trees. As a result, the development would have a <br />maintenance agreement to cover dead trees but yet still allow the property owner the right to walk in that <br />area. Stickney commented that arrangement would result in the best of both worlds since no one wants an <br />association where people from the public are allowed to walk around and then pay association fees on top <br />of that for that area. Stickney stated under the right guidance, he would suggest the Planning Commission <br />consider that option. <br /> <br />Stickney stated as mentioned before, out of the 37 properties that are located around this property in all <br />directions, 20 of the properties were under 100 feet in width already and ranged in width from just over <br />84 feet in width and then 66, 56, 80 and 50 feet. Given the ten lots that are near this site, the proposed <br />lots would fit into the area. In addition, a number of the neighboring homes are close to the road and over <br />50 percent of the properties have less than a half acre. The proposed lots on the subject property are on <br />average 0.63 acre when the total dry acreage is taken into consideration. In total the site consists of 4.8 <br />acres of land. Stickney stated in his view the density works for this property and Option 2 solves some of <br />the issues of the neighbors. <br /> <br />Leskinen asked what the difference would be if they went with the long narrow lots versus platting the <br />entire back portion as an outlot and putting a conservation easement over it and including it with the <br />association. Leskinen asked what the difference if the back parcel would be an outlot and not platted as <br />part of the individuals. Leskinen stated in her view that would help avoid the issues that the long narrow <br />lots would present. <br /> <br />Stickney stated it would allow the homeowners to control their own destiny and it would be an <br />enhancement to help sell the land. <br /> <br />McGrann asked if he is proposing Option 1 without a homeowner’s association. <br /> <br />Item #01 - PC Agenda - 11/18/2013 <br />Approval of Planning Commission Minutes 10/21/2013 <br />[Page 14 of 42]