12-12-2005 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Moaday, October 17,2005 6:00 o’clock p.ai. fi *• ♦ . 3. WS-3152 BOHLAND DEVELOPMENT ON BEHALF OF JAMES D. MACKINNON, ET AL^ “3500”, 6:50 P.M. - 7:17 P.M. Marie Oronberg, Surveyor, was present. Oaffion stated the Planning Commission has reviewed this application previously. Gafiron noted that Staff has not received final septic testing and design reports on this application so it does not qualify as a complete preliminary plat application. Gaflror indicated the Planning Commission at the last meeting had direct the applicant to explore clustering or eliminate the necessity of building a house down in the soudieast comer of the property. Gafiron stated the applicant is still proposing six lots but instead has created a large outlot near Watertown Road, with all lots accessing a private road. Gaffron noted the lots have been reduced below the 2.0 acre area/200 feet width standards of the RR-IB District. However, the overall dry buildable area of 14.3 acres would calculate to a proposed density of 2.38 acres per unit. Gaf&on stated one positive revision is the possibility of tucking the house on Lot 3, Block 2, into the northwest comer, which reduces the need to do a substantial ar*'junt of grading. The applicant is also proposing to locate the stormwater pond partially within the existing delineated ^and and will require special City and MCWD approvals to allow this location. Staff has preliminarily indicated support for this concept, based on the limitations of the site for other efficient ponding locations. Wetland mitigation might be feasible at the southeast portion of Outlot B to make this plan more ac ;eptabie. Gafiron noted there is an existing drainageway through the site that may need to be relocated. Gaffion recommended the following issues be considered; 1. Is the PFD concept acceptable for this site? 2. Are the proposed lot sizes and widths acceptable in terms of a PRD proposal? 3. Does the layout address the City's Conservation Design goals? Are there aspects of the plan that need further refinementV I OafBxm stated this application was published for a public hearing as the developer intended to move forward; however, because the application remains incomplete, the Planning Commission should review the proposed PRD plat, identify for the developer what issues are most critical to focus on, and receive public comments regarding the revised subdivision proposal. I Staff would recommend that if Planning Commission is comfortable with toe prqmsed concept, the current proposal be forwarded to Council for review of whether Council will support the PRD concept at dus site. If so, then the applicant would be back before the Planning Commission in November for ilete review of preliminary plat documents.•)MI* Rahn stated in his opinion the revised plan is a major improvemnit over the last plan. PAGES