Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br /> Monday,July 18,2005 <br /> 6:00 o'clock p.m. <br /> (#05-3131 Steve Bohl,Continued) <br /> 3. Under Orono's pending wetland ordinance revisions, if the wetland basin is between 2.5 and 5 <br /> acres as anticipated,the City would require a 25 foot buffer and additional 20 foot buffer setback <br /> for structures from the wetland,which would have potential significant impacts on house <br /> placement and buildability for Lots 8, 9, 10, and 11. <br /> 4. If this site is developed via the RPUD standards,and depending on whether the road becomes <br /> public or private, it may be appropriate to place the wetlands and ponds into a commonly owned <br /> outlot. <br /> 5. The Planning Commission should review the conformity with lot standards as noted on the table <br /> on Page 2. <br /> 6. The Planning Commission should discuss and make a recommendation as to whether both the 15 <br /> percent limit and the FAR should apply to this development, or just the FAR. <br /> Gronberg stated the lot line between Lots 1 and 2 is located in its proposed location due to a row of <br /> evergreen trees that currently exist. Gronberg stated wetland mitigation for the wetland located near Lot <br /> 9 is being discussed with the Watershed District and if wetland mitigation is not allowed,Lot 9 would be <br /> eliminated. Gronberg stated if Lot 9 is eliminated, some of the area could be dedicated for park. <br /> Gronberg noted he was not aware of the ten percent recreation area requirement until tonight. <br /> Gaffron indicated the RPUD standards require that each RPUD development dedicate a minimum of ten <br /> percent of the gross project area in private recreational uses for project residences. <br /> Lee Aschenbeck, 131 Glendale Drive, stated he would like to see the amount of housing reduced in this <br /> area given the number of variances that appear to be necessary. <br /> Gaffron stated each specific lot should be looked at in terms of variances and whether any hardship exists. <br /> There were no additional public comments. <br /> Winkey inquired whether this plan would need to be revised if the Wetland Ordinance applies in this area. <br /> Gaffron stated the property does contain wetlands at the south end,which would need to be protected by a <br /> Conservation and Flowage Easement. The wetland near Lots 9 and 10 may be impacted by the draft <br /> Wetland Ordinance and the applicant is currently exploring with the MCWD whether fill/mitigation of <br /> this area is possible. Gaffron stated it is possible that a 25-foot buffer and an additional 20-foot buffer <br /> setback would be required,which could have a significant impact on house placement and buildability for <br /> Lots 8, 9, 10, and 11. <br /> Winkey stated it appears that a majority of the lots would require variances and that it appears a large <br /> number of houses are being proposed for this area,which may not be realistic. Winkey inquired whether <br /> PAGE 21 <br />