12-12-2005 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

I' MOS-3152 October 13,200S Page 4 Road Layout and Standards The proposed road layout meets the corridor standards of a 50' road right-of-way and 100’ cul- de-sac diameter. The access location onto Watertown Road is at the bottom of a vertical curve and at the inside of a horizontal curve, but is perhaps at the most viable location that will minimize impacts on the wetland in order to access the rear of the property. Applicant s engineer should be asked to analyze the siglit distance at this location. Significant vegetation removal along the north side of Watertown Road may be needed east of the private road entrance to gain adequate sight distance, which can be an ongoing maintenance issue. Construction of the road will require significant grading as well as some wetland filling. Please also see the City Engineer’s comments in Exhibits H-1 and H-2 of the September 15 packet. The TViArA 1C no nnnsirp.nt for additional rieht-of-WaV fotroad to be created will be private. There is no apparent need for additional right-of-way for Watertown Road, which is a City road. Because the property to the immediate north is developable, it is appropriate that the private road corridor be continued to the north boundary of the property as presented, to provide future road access to the neighboring property, with potential “through” connection to Stubbs Bay Road North in the future. ParicfTrail Easements or Dedication Needed The Orono Comprehensive Trail System Plan does not show any future trails along this segment of Watertown Road. The 6 new lots would be subject to the standard 8% park dedication. It is likely that this will be in the form of a fee rather than land dedication, although this will be reviewed by the Park Commission. The residential Park Fee is cmtently established with a min- max fee of $3250-15550 per lot. Issues for Consideration 1. 2. 3. 4. Is the PRD concept acceptable for this site? Arc the proposed lot sizes and widths acceptable in terms of a PRD proposal? Does the layout address the City’s Conservation Design goals? Are there aspects of the plan that need fiurther refinement? Staff Recommendation This application wos published for a public hearing as the developer intended to move forward; however, because the application remains incomplete (septic testing and designs have not been provided) 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. Staff would recommend that if Plamiing Commission is comfortable with the proposed concept, the current proposal be forwarded to Council for review of whether Council will support the PRD concept at this site. If so, then applicant would be back before PC in November for complete review of preliminary plat documents. LLiiHkii