12-12-2005 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OFTHE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, July 18,2005 6:00 o’clock p.m. (#05-3131 Steve Bohl, Continued) 3.Under Orono’s .pending wetland ordinance revisions, if the wetland basin is between 2.S and 5 acres as anticipated, the City would require a 25 foot buffer and additional 20 foot buffer setback for structures from the wetland, which would have potential significant impacts on house placement and buitdability for Lots 8,9,10, and 11. 4.If this site is developed via the RPUD standards, and depending on whether the road becomes public or private, it may be appropriate to place the wetlands and ponds into a connnonly owned ouUot. 5.The Planning Commission should review the conformity with lot standards as noted on the table on Page 2. 6.The Planning Commission should discuss and make a recommendation as to whether both the 15 percent limit and the FAR should apply to this development, or just the FAR. Gronberg stated the lot line between Lots 1 and 2 is located in its proposed location due to a row of evergreen trees that cunently exist. Gronberg stated wetland mitigation for the wetland located near Lot 9 is being discussed with the Watershed District and if wetland'mitigation is not allowed. Lot 9 would be eliminated. Gronberg stated if Lot 9 is eliminated, some of the area could be dedicated for park. Gronberg noted he was not aware of the ten percent recreation area requirement until tonight. Gaffron indicated the RPUD standards require that each RPUD development dedicate a minimum of ten percent of the gross project area in private recreational uses for project residences. Lee Aschenbeck, 131 Glendale Drive, stated he would like to see the amount of housing reduced in this area given the number of variances that appear to be necessary. Gaffion stated each specific lot should be looked at in terms of variances and whether any hardship exists. There were no additional public comments. Winkey inquired whether this plan would need to be revised if the Wetland Ordinance applies in this area. Gaffron stated the property does contain wetlands at the south end, which would need to be protected by a Conservation and Flowage Easement. The wetland near Lots 9 and 10 may be impacted by the draft Wetland Ordiiunce and the applicant is currently exploring with the MCWD whether fill/mitigation of this area is possible. Gaffron stated it is possible that a 25-foot buffer and an additional 20-foot buffer setback would be required, which could have a significant impact on house placement and buildability for Lots 8,9,10, and 11. Winkey stated it appears that a majority of the lots would require variances and that it appears a large number of houses are being proposed for this area, which may not be realistic. Winkey inquired whether PAGE 21