Laserfiche WebLink
MS-3131 <br />July 13,2005 <br />Page? <br />Issues for Consideration or Discussion <br />1.Planning Commission should determine whether RPUD is the appropriate rezoning <br />option for this development. Planning Commission may also wish to discuss whether <br />rezoning proposd Lot 3 (the remaining church property) to RPUD is appropriate, or <br />whether it should remain as a conditional use in the RR-1B zone. <br />2.Applicant must provide a suitable plans and elevation views showing how development <br />of the site can meet the City’s Conservation Design goals. <br />3.Under Orono ’s pending wetland ordinance revisions, if the wetland basin is between 2.5 <br />and 5 acres as anticipated, the City would require a 25’ buffer and additional 20’ buffer <br />setback for structures from the wetland, which would have potential significant impacts <br />on house placement and buildability for Lots 8-9-10-11. <br />4. <br />'!■ r. <br />If this site is developed via the RPUD standards, and depending on whether the road <br />becomes public or private, it may be most appropriate to place the wetlands and ponds <br />into a commonly owned outlot. Either way, ^e ponds and wetlands severely limit the use <br />of Lots 9-10-11. <br />5.Planning Commission should review the conformity with lot standards as noted on the <br />table on Page 2. <br />6.Planning Commission should discuss and make a recommendation as to whether both the 1 S% limit <br />and the FAR should apply to this development, or just the FAR <br />7.Planning Commission should discuss whether the road should be public or private, and <br />the ramifications of each option. <br />8.Planning Commission should discuss the options for meeting the 10% recreation area <br />requirement <br />9.Developer should advise as to whether he will be ptirsuing City water from Long Lake, <br />and advise staff and Planning Commission as to any recent discussions he has had with <br />long Lake in regards to this plat proposal. <br />Staff Recommendation <br />Discussion of the above issues should provide {q>plicant and staff with direction as to how the <br />proposed plat should be revised. Given that there is a wetland moratorium in effect, no actions can <br />be taken on the aspects of the plat that impact wetlands. Staff recommends tabling for further plan <br />refinement.