Laserfiche WebLink
' MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br /> Monday,July 20,2015 <br /> 6:30 o'clock p.m. <br /> Gaffron noted the Park Commission has not reviewed this application but it is anticipated that no public <br /> land will be required for a public park. The CMP does indicate that a future trail is proposed along <br /> Stubbs Bay Road. Whether this trail will ever be completed is unlaiown but a 10-foot easement along the <br /> west boundary for future trail purposes should be considered. In addition, as six new building sites are <br /> being proposed,payment of the standard Park Dedication fee for six new building lots would be <br /> appropriate. The current fee is $5,550 per lot or a total of$33,300. <br /> The Planning Commission should discuss the following issues: <br /> 1. The unusually high number of drain field sites located at the minimum required setbacks. <br /> 2. The impact of 40 feet and 50 feet wetland buffers is significant. If 75-foot buffers are required, <br /> the impact is extremely critical. <br /> 3. What is planned for the house on Lot 5? What will happen with the access outlot it currently uses <br /> and should that be part of this plat given that only the initial few feet are actually used by the <br /> neighbor at 300 Stubbs Bay Road? Can the applicant confirm where the existing septic system is <br /> in relation to the new lot line abutting Lot 4? <br /> 4. Should the existing width of Kintyre Lane, which will become substandard per code requirement, <br /> be expanded to meet code? What are the ramifications of such an extension? <br /> 5. The applicant should be made aware that City determinations of building height and number of <br /> stories rely on the use of existing grades. It might be of benefit to the developer to confer with <br /> Staff regarding the potential benefits of establishing new existing grades on certain lots by <br /> creating building pads during the site improvements grading process. <br /> 6. The Planning Commission should review the Conservation Design materials and determine <br /> whether there are any potential concerns. <br /> 7. Is the lot configuration at the north end justified, given that three cul-de-sac lots need significant <br /> lot width variances? <br /> The applicant should be advised to address the items detailed in the City Engineer's comments and <br /> address the issues noted in Staff's report. <br /> Gaffron noted the applicants have completed a Conservation Design Report and it has been included in <br /> the Commissioners' packets in its entirety. In general the report found that the development will retain <br /> the rural character consistent with the surrounding neighborhood. The applicant has arranged the site to <br /> preserve three of the four noted significant tree stands. The fourth tree stand, comprised of introduced <br /> conifers near the south end of the site around the existing residence, will be impacted by road <br /> construction. Wetlands and drainage patterns will be maintained and the views into the site will not be <br /> significantly disrupted. <br /> The applicant has also submitted a vegetation management plan that spells out a variety of actions to be <br /> taken with regard to wetland buffer areas,buckthorn, and reed canary grass. The suggested Master Plan <br /> Page 5 of 25 <br />