Laserfiche WebLink
Zoning File #1877 <br />October 15, 1993 <br />Page 2 <br />In addition to the historical site is the opportunity for a number of hiking or biking trails <br />to be :!eveloped. Park Commission did indicate they would consider accepting some park lands <br />in lieu of park fees, but did not commit to any specific proposal. <br />Causing the developer (and staff) much consternation is the fact that wetlands designated <br />under new State Wetland Conservation Act guidelines greatly exceed the wetland areas shown <br />on Orono’s 1975 maps. Significant areas of Type *. and 2 wetland nc shown on Orono maps <br />has been identified on both properties, and policy questions must be dealt with as to whether <br />these areas will be considered by the City as dry buildable if the other agencies with jurisdiction <br />allow their use at all. Note that staff, the developer, and representatives from the various <br />agencies involved are meeting on Monday, October 18th to review the issues. <br />Staff Recommendation <br />As a sketch plan review, this is Planning Commission’s opportunity to give the developer <br />early input on various issues. <br />Staff recommends that Planning Commission review with the developer your thoughts <br />on the following: <br />1. Con.ept of an interpretive center/park at Ancient Burial Site. <br />2. Concept of trails wandering through the site. <br />3. Long cul-de-sacs versus "through" roads - provisions for future interconnections. <br />4. Public roads versus private roads. <br />5. <br />6. <br />7. <br />Access to existing roads. <br />Lt>t width variances for cul-de-sac lots and lots on sharp curves. <br />Standard plat with trail/park private road outlets and fully confonning lot sizes <br />versus PRD concept with clustering. If the delineated Type 1 and 2 wetlands <br />ultimately can’t be credited as dry buildable, applicant may wish to consider a <br />PRD with some clustering, and the question is raised as to whether the City <br />would accept a planned development with some substandard sized lots. Staff can <br />discuss this further at the meeting. (Drainfield site preservation is staffs main <br />concern). Please review the standards of Section 10.32 (Exhibit F) which you <br />will see gives developers significant layout flexibility but virtually no flexibility <br />for overall density increases.