My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
01-23-2006 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
2006
>
01-23-2006 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/13/2015 1:04:53 PM
Creation date
7/13/2015 1:04:31 PM
Metadata
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
204
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
#OS-3131 <br /> December 8,2005 , <br /> Page 4 <br /> B. Relationship to Surroundiug Development <br /> This proposed SFR developrnent for 8 new homes has an average dry buildable lot area of <br /> slightly under 16,000 s.£, with no new building lots less than 14,000 s,f. as reconzmended by the <br /> Planning Conunission. This fits into the general range of lot sizes in the surrounding <br /> neighborhood. The Hackberry neighborhood directly to the west in Orono has existing developed <br /> SFR lots generally ranging in size fi•om 17,000 s.f. to 22,000 s.£ The Glendale Drive <br /> neighborhood in Long Lake (southeast of the church) has lots in the range of 14,000 s.f. to <br /> 20,000 s.£ The Han•ington Drive neighborhood in Long Lake (behind the fire station) has lots <br /> ranbing from under 12,000 s.f. to 25,000 s.£ When Parcel Group 3 was re-guided, a density of <br /> 2-3 units per acre SFR was chosen, which would be au average lot size of 14,000-22,000 s.f., <br /> very similar to the surrounding development. <br /> C. Conservation Design <br /> Parcel Group 3 is one of the areas reviewed as part of the Rural Oasis visioning study. The City's <br /> planning consultants DSU presented an analysis of important visual elements about Parcel Group <br /> 3 that will help define how Parcel Group 3 should be developed. While specific ordinances are <br /> not yet in place, this subdivisdion as a RPUD planned development has been required to address <br /> the visual impacts and the elements of Conservation Design. A key element in this plat should <br /> be the retention and enhancement of natural views looking northeastward towards the site from <br /> Willow Drive. Applicant has provided preliininary recommendations from AES, which Council <br /> should review(Exhibit F). <br /> D. Wetland Impacts—WCA Considerations, Buffers, etc. <br /> The southwesterly portion of the property contains wetlands which will be protected by a <br /> Conservation and Flowage Easement, save for a portion of a small wetland finger extending into <br /> Lot 8. Applicant is proposing to fill a 2000 sf portion of this finger, the deminimus amount of <br /> fill allowed by WCA regulations without requiring mitigation, Because of this filling, Lots 7 and <br /> 8 would not require variances for the wetland buffer setback established in the City's new <br /> wetland ordinance. Applicant will also be requesting that MCWD approve the revised wetland <br /> delineation that reclassifies portions of the ditch wetland along Willow Drive as "incidental" and <br /> acceptable to fill for roadway (and firture trail) purposes. <br /> E. Stormwater and Drainage Improvements and/or Easements Needed <br /> The proposed development is required to provide stormwater management systems including a <br /> NURP pond which is proposed in Outlot A. The entire property including wetlands and the <br /> Williamson residence lot will be subject to the Stonn Water and Drainage Trtullc Fee established <br /> for 2005 as $4,160 per acre for the 1/2 acre zone; no fee has beeu established for SFR at 2-3 units <br /> per acre, but we would eapect the above rate to be in the ballpark for the proposed development. <br /> W/iether tlre c/accrck pru•cel, Lot 3, sliould be e.renipt fi•om the SW&DT Fee is an item for <br /> fcu�tltet•disccrssio�7. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.