11-25-1991 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

r T' * Zoning File #1691 6 11702 November 21, 1991 Page 4 Refer to Exhibit Note the 1-1/2 acre wetland designated as Glenco soils to the south of the sewer pond. This area was filled at the time of the original installation of th . sewer pond back in the early 60's. Review Steve McComas' report. Exhibit J, specifically the last paragraph on Page 1, he notes that at this point in the 1990's there are no indicators that would characterize this area as a wetland area any longer based on the hydrology and vegetation. As a result, this area is now classified as dry buildable. Once again refer to Exhibit L, the area to the north designated at 1/2 acre Glenco soils has been partially filled# the applicant proposed the use of this area once again as a sediment pond/detention area for devexopment run off. Review Exhibit V, grading and drainage plan shet.t 3. Upon final resolve of the drainage plan for this project, ppropriate easements will be taken over detention/retentior areas and drainageways. Please refer to Hr. MaComas' report (Exhibit J and Exhibit U). At a site inspection, staff delineated the boundaries of the wetlands based on hydrology and vegetation, in reviewing the proposed building pad for Lot 1, Block 1, it appears that the 26' setoack may not have been maintained along the northwest side of the pad. Staff will reconfirm the setbacks with the applicant's consultants prior to your formal approval of the preliminary plat. in a PRD subdivision total dry buildable areas can be credited within the road outlots and the area to be dedicated for road purposes along Orono Orchard Road. Each of the pads contain Approximately 1.04 acres in area. Note the flexibility offered. Under the FRD there is no need to maintain 1 acre within each building pad and the developer need not use RR-lB setback standards. Applicant requests special setbacks as shown in Exhibit V, Sheet 2. The setbacks requested are 35' front and rear and 10' sides. Pads 1, 2, 3, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11 propose a 50* rear, 35* street setback and 10* side. This is an attempt by applicant to address the concerns of the adjacent neighbors receiving most ioipact. Note Pad 1, Block I's building envelope has been opened up by relocating an additional unit t he east side. Pad 1 within Block 2 appears to be severely re the 16* force main intersecting the pad in half. Th consider asking future developer to relocate the force m. on alternatives suggested in staff sketch. Exhibit P. -ted by .ty may n based Review Page 2 of applicant's addendem. Exhibit A-1. Nr. Roos's coaments note there is a 50' x 125' building site between the easment and the front setback and a 60* x 110* building site tween the easement and the rear setback. He feels these are equate building areas but would forward staff's comments to the ueveloper. The City Council should provide direr:ion on this issue.