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 17 of 42  <br />  <br />Lemke noted this is not a final plan and that the Planning Commission is attempting to determine which <br />direction to go. <br /> <br />Schoenzeit stated the Planning Commission could recommend certain things they would like to see <br />happen with the development. <br /> <br />Landgraver stated he thought more neighbors would express concern regarding the density. From a <br />development standpoint, it is more advantageous to have the homes closer together. Landgraver stated <br />given the concerns of the neighbor to the west, perhaps the City Council should look at moving the house <br />on Lot 1 forward. Landgraver indicated he is in favor of the PRD and Option 1 with accommodations for <br />the neighbor to the west as well as an easement around the pond. <br /> <br />Thiesse asked if the path could be located within the buffer. <br /> <br />Gaffron indicated that question would need to be directed to the Watershed District. Lot 4 will have a <br />house that is tight up against setbacks in the front and the sides and right up against the setback to the <br />wetland, which will not leave much room to the rear for a path unless it is located within the buffer. <br />Gaffron recommended the developer explore that with the Watershed District. <br /> <br />Landgraver noted Staff brought up the point about a rain garden under Option 1 but Option 2 does not <br />appear to contain a rain garden. <br /> <br />Gaffron stated the rain gardens are depicted in both options. <br /> <br />Landgraver moved, Thiesse seconded, to recommend approval of Application No. 13-3631, <br />Landsource, LLC, as a PRD under Option 1, with the recommendation that there be a community <br />path allowing access for all six lot owners under an easement, and with the development being <br />subject to accommodations being made to Lot 1 as it relates to driveway location and house <br />placement to minimize the impact to the neighbor to the west. VOTE: Ayes 7, Nays 0. <br /> <br />NEW BUSINESS <br /> <br />6. 13-3634 STONEWOOD, LLC, ON BEHALF OF JAMES O’ROURKE, 3227 CASCO <br />CIRCLE, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VARIANCE, 8:10 p.m. – 8:15 P.M. <br /> <br />James O’Rouke, Applicant, was present. <br /> <br />Curtis stated the applicant is requesting a conditional use permit in order to construct new lake yard <br />retaining walls and lake access stair in conjunction with an in-kind rebuild of the boat house structure and <br />new home construction on the property. No variances are required for the residence. <br /> <br />Curtis stated as part of the redevelopment, the applicant is proposing to rebuild the existing boathouse. <br />The boathouse is an existing legal nonconforming structure. As part of its in kind replacement, the <br />applicant is proposing to eliminate the open space and retaining wall which created an unsafe void behind <br />the boathouse. New retaining walls and lake access stairs are proposed, which retaining walls and access <br />stairs. The plan as shown within the 75-foot setback requires a conditional use permit and hardcover <br />variance. In place of the walls and the hardcover removals, the applicant is proposing to fill in the void <br />Item #01 - PC Agenda - 11/18/2013 <br />Approval of Planning Commission Minutes 10/21/2013 <br />[Page 17 of 42]