Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br /> Monday,September 18,2017 <br /> 6:30 o'clock p.m. <br /> There were no public comments regarding this application. <br /> Chair Thiesse closed the public hearing at 8:22 p.m. <br /> Thiesse stated in his view because this is higher density with smaller lots,that should equate to smaller <br /> houses. <br /> Schoenzeit stated the developer could adjust the roofline and that the height restriction is strictly adhered <br /> to. <br /> Thiesse commented he cannot remember the last time the City granted a variance to height for residential <br /> housing. <br /> Barnhart noted the Orono senior housing building was granted a height variance. Barnhart stated the <br /> question before the Planning Commission is whether they are willing to increase the height above 30 feet. <br /> The other issue is the difference in definition. Barnhart indicated there was a miscommunication between <br /> the applicant and staff regarding proposed and approved grade. <br /> Schoenzeit stated it should be 30 feet above what was approved and that he is not in favor of increasing <br /> the building height. Schoenzeit stated when they created this new project,they got their chance of setting <br /> the grade, and if a new lot needs a step to change a grade,that had to be in the plan and they do not get to <br /> make it 32 or 35 feet after the fact. <br /> Lemke stated if the topography was rolling, he would not have as much of a problem, but this site is flat <br /> and the homes are already sticking up. <br /> Leskinen expressed a concern with anything going higher than 30 feet from grade whether that is <br /> established grade, proposed grade, or existing grade. Leskinen noted the homes will be a little closer <br /> together and that she does not want them to be taller. Leskinen indicated she would like to stay with the <br /> height as defined in code. Leskinen stated as far as where grade is established, she can be flexible on that, <br /> but that her understanding is there already is an approved grading plan so those grades have already been <br /> established. <br /> Thiesse stated the grades were left low so they could use the dirt from the basement excavations and that <br /> in his mind the developer should be working with proposed grade rather than existing. <br /> Schoenzeit commented they should not be allowed to fill it in with more house since the project gives <br /> them the luxury of setting the grade but not raising the house. <br /> Ian Peterson, David Weekley Homes, stated they are just attempting to clarify and that the way the code <br /> reads is existing highest ground versus proposed finished grade. Peterson indicated they are fine with <br /> proposed grade on the grading plan and that they were trying to simplify everything by trying to envision <br /> what would be the absolute tallest they would need. <br /> Thiesse stated they can either use existing highest ground and give the developer two feet or work off the <br /> proposed grade and give the developer no additional feet. <br /> Page 16 of 21 <br />