Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br /> Monday,October 17,2005 <br /> 6:00 o'clock p.m. <br /> 3. #05-3152 BOHLAND DEVELOPMENT ON BEHALF OF JAMES D.MACKINNON,ET <br /> AL.,"3500", 6:50 P.M.—7:17 P.M. <br /> Mark Gronberg, Surveyor,was present. <br /> Gaffron stated the Planning Commission has reviewed this application previously. Gaffron noted that <br /> Staff has not received final septic testing and design reports on this application so it does not qualify as a <br /> complete preliminary plat application. Gaffron indicated the Planning Commission at the last meeting <br /> had directed the applicant to explore clustering or eliminate the necessity of building a house down in the <br /> southeast corner of the property. <br /> Gaffron stated the applicant is still proposing six lots but instead has created a large outlot near <br /> Watertown Road,with all lots accessing a private road. Gaffron noted the lots have been reduced below <br /> the 2.0 acre area/200 feet width standards of the RR-1B District. However,the overall dry buildable area <br /> of 14.3 acres would calculate to a proposed density of 2.38 acres per unit. Gaffron stated one positive <br /> revision is the possibility of tucking the house on Lot 3,Block 2, into the northwest corner,which reduces <br /> the need to do a substantial amount of grading. <br /> The applicant is also proposing to locate the stormwater pond partially within the existing delineated <br /> wetland and will require special City and MCWD approvals to allow this location. Staff has preliminarily <br /> indicated support for this concept,based on the limitations of the site for other efficient ponding locations. <br /> Wetland mitigation might be feasible at the southeast portion of Outlot B to make this plan more <br /> acceptable. Gaffron noted there is an existing drainageway through the site that may need to be relocated. <br /> Gaffron recommended the following issues be considered: <br /> 1. Is the PRD concept acceptable for this site? <br /> 2. Are the proposed lot sizes and widths acceptable in terms of a PRD proposal? <br /> 3. Does the layout address the City's Conservation Design goals? <br /> 4. Are there aspects of the plan that need further refinement? <br /> Gaffron stated this application was published for a public hearing as the developer intended to move <br /> forward; however,because the application remains incomplete, the Planning Commission should review <br /> the proposed PRD plat, identify for the developer what issues are most critical to focus on,and receive <br /> public comments regarding the revised subdivision proposal. <br /> Staff would recommend that if Planning Commission is comfortable with the proposed concept,the <br /> current proposal be forwarded to Council for review of whether Council will support the PRD concept at <br /> this site. If so,then the applicant would be back before the Planning Commission in November for <br /> complete review of preliminary plat documents. <br /> Rahn stated in his opinion the revised plan is a major improvement over the last plan. <br /> PAGE 8 <br />