Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br /> Monday,September 16,2013 <br /> 6:30 o'clock p.m. <br /> Gaffron noted each lot meets the required acreage but they have been laid out in odd shapes. There is a <br /> wetland by everyone's estimation at this point going to require a buffer. The Watershed District will be <br /> requiring a 40-foot buffer. The City Code requires that whatever buffer the Watershed District requires, <br /> you will need an additional feet of setback. So from the boundaries of that wetland, no structure can be <br /> less than 50 feet from it. <br /> As it relates to the hardcover being proposed for this subdivision,the project will meet all the hardcover <br /> standards and is considered a Tier III, which is allowed 30 percent. Individually each lot will be <br /> approximately 20 percent or less. <br /> Gaffron stated as it relates to the driveway layout,the two back lots at either end will share a driveway <br /> with the house located next to them. There will be two shared driveways and then two other driveways in <br /> the middle of the site. As a result,you will end up with a total of four driveways in about a 460-foot <br /> width along Northern Avenue, which is not unusual for this neighborhood. Easements will be required <br /> over those two narrow corridor outlots so each property owner has the right to utilize that driveway. <br /> The Comprehensive Plan does not talk about the need for a park in this area. There is an existing regional <br /> trail located across the street. Staff would be recommending a park dedication fee at this point. If a <br /> dedication of land is recommended, it would amount to 8 percent and would be approximately 50 feet. <br /> Gaffron stated in his view there is not a need for park dedication and there is no demand for it in the <br /> Comprehensive Plan or City Code. <br /> Stormwater and drainage improvements have been reviewed by the City's engineering consultant and <br /> those comments are included in the Planning Commission's packet. The engineer has noted that it is <br /> likely the Watershed District will not require a stormwater management plan. In the plan that has been <br /> submitted by the applicants, on either end of the pond is shown a rain garden type drainage structure. <br /> That structure is an attempt to accumulate the drainage off the properties to the southwest before it enters <br /> the wetland. On the east end of the wetland,there would also be another rain garden that would collect <br /> the runoff. The development would be subject to stormwater and trunk fee of approximately$28,000 per <br /> City Code. <br /> City sewer and city water are available for this development. The property was provided with water in <br /> 1970 and they were charged for three water units at that time. Any additional units would require a$2800 <br /> per unit water connection charge. The property was provided with sewer in 1982,which was assessed for <br /> 2.0 acres and four units. The developable acreage for this property would be calculated at 3.74 acres net <br /> of wetland and road, leaving 1.74 acres not assessed. Any additional units above four units would incur a <br /> $600 per unit trunk charged for a total of approximately$7000. <br /> The developer has provided a Conservation Design Report, which includes a tree survey, natural <br /> resources inventory, and conservation design master plan. The Planning Commission should review the <br /> report and discuss with the applicant his plans for adhering to the recommended provisions for site <br /> management. Gaffron noted the only conservation easements recommended by the consultant are for the <br /> wetlands and wetland buffer. Although the report recommends that the tree border adjacent to Northern <br /> Avenue be preserved as a buffer to the development, it does not recommend a conservation easement be <br /> established in that area. <br /> The City Engineer, in his comments, suggests that such an easement would be appropriate. With or <br /> without an easement, Staff is skeptical that this area can realistically be preserved during construction. <br /> Page 24 of 34 <br />