01-09-2006 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday,December 12, 2005 7:00 dclock p.m. (8. #OS-3152 BOHLAND DF_VELOPNIENT ON BEHALF OF JAMES D. MACKINNON, ET AL, "3500" WATERTO�I�NROAD, Contiiiued) It was the recommendation of the Planning Commission that the Council grant Planned Residential Developnlent preliminary plat approval subject to: 1. I�icorporation into plans of all of the recommendations of Applied Ecological Services regarding conservation design, landscaping, etc.; 2. Application should address comments by tlle City's wetland consultant John Smyth; 3. Conservation Easement to be required over east end of Lots 1-2-3,Block 2, as well as over Outlot B; 4. Additional conditions with regards to covenants for protection of septic sites on small lots should Ue addressed. Gaffion stated the applicant has provided substantial inforniation toward making the development feasible, especially in embracing the elements of Conservation Desi�m. However, staff recommends the following issues be discussed as Council considers ��anting preliminary PRD plat approval: 1. A revised stornlwater management plan addressing the concept of a linear ponding area has not been provided. This requires MCWD review and approval as well as City approval, as it makes use of a portion of the wetland for storniwater treatment. The application should not move much further forward until there is some commitment by MCWD to a stonnwater plan involving linear ponding with the wetland. Also note that the judicious use of curU and gutter may be required to ensure that runoff from the road and driveways reaches the stornlwater ponds. 2. Significant fill will be needed to create the road access onto Watertown Road, and this will require substantial retaining walls in Outlot B,requiring engineering. 3. The grading plans for individual homes leave a lot to be desired. In all three Block 21ots,the steep slopes result in an irrunediate drop away from the house, leaving no functional back yard, or the need for suUstantial terracing and retaining walls to have any sort of flat back yard. The actual grading for each site may end up suUstantially different than shown on the current plans, and any amenities, such as pools, sport courts, etc., will Ue difficult to establish without rnajor topographic changes. These lots may be difficult to market under the proposed layout. 4. Review of the City Engineer's conunents. 5. Staff is in the process of drafting a Preliminary Plat Approval resolution, a first draft of which is attached as ExhiUit H. Bohl stated the biggest recommendation was to relocate Outlot B further back. Bohl stated they had originally proposed the stonnwater ponding behind Lots 2 and 3, with the hope to try to preserve as much of the iree buffer in that area. Bohl stated in his view the stormwater pond could be kept out of Outlot B, but that when the wetland is moved into the wetland, the Uiggest proUlem will Ue the Watershed Dish-ict and the need to mitigate the wetland two to one. Bohl stated they have relocated the pond into a wetland area,which has allowed them to preserve some h�ees and that the wetland would be improved through this process, but that he is tulsure whether the Watershed District would allow them to do that. White stated the idea of saving a Uunch of t�-ees is appealing. McMillan commented the wetland is fairly degraded and that there are some advantages to restoring wetlands. McMillan noted this wetland consists of a lot of reed canary grass, which tends to lcill the wetland. Bohl stated AES did recommend removal of tlle reed canaiy�-ass. PAGE 13 of 20