Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br /> Monday,November 21,2005 <br /> 6:00 o'clock p.m. <br /> 2. STEVE BOHL OF BORLAND DEVELOPMENT"3500"WATERTOWN ROAD, <br /> PRELIMINARY PLAT,6:30 P.M.—6:55 P.M. <br /> Steve Bohl, Applicant,was present. <br /> Gaffron stated this application has appeared before the Planning Commission on prior occasions, with the <br /> applicant proposing to subdivide this 17-acre parcel to create six single-family residential lots. Under the <br /> revised plan,the applicant is proposing that a new private road extending 700 feet northward from <br /> Watertown Road would serve all six lots. All lots would be served by private septic systems and wells. <br /> Gaffron indicated the revised plan eliminates the southeast building site near Watertown Road and places <br /> all six home sites in the northwest quadrant of the property, on lots ranging from 1.35 acres to 2.56 acres <br /> in dry buildable area. This proposal would be reviewed as a Planned Residential Development. <br /> The applicant has submitted recommendations from Applied Ecological Services dated November 18, <br /> 2005, with regards to Conservation Design. In addition, septic testing information has been submitted, <br /> with the sites as proposed being found acceptable. <br /> Gaffron stated on October 26th, Staff met with the City's wetland consultant, John Smyth, to review the <br /> potential wetland impacts of the proposed stormwater pond design that incorporates part of the wetland, <br /> as well as to consider the pro's and con's of a linear pond that would potentially reduce the amount of tree <br /> removal uphill from the wetland. The applicant is currently attempting to gain confirmation of MCWD <br /> acceptance of stormwater ponding located partially within the wetland. <br /> The applicant has also met with Adam Arvidson,landscape architect with DSU,to review the Rural Oasis <br /> study and its applicability to this site. Arvidson indicated that the current layout has addressed the major <br /> concerns for preservation of the long views and wooded backdrop. <br /> Gaffron stated questions remaining unanswered deal with the following: <br /> 1. What are the recommendations of AES and Smyth with regards to ponding options? Will <br /> MCWD accept ponding options that encroach into the wetland? <br /> 2. Are the proposed lot sizes and widths acceptable in terms of a PRD proposal? If septic system <br /> sites are confirmed to be viable, is Planning Commission comfortable with the site layout? Does <br /> the Planning Commission have any recommendation regarding development limitations to be <br /> addressed in covenants? <br /> 3. Is the Planning Commission satisfied that the layout addresses the City's Conservation <br /> Design goals? <br /> 4. Are there aspects of the plan that need further refinement? <br /> Bohl stated their goal is to run a linear pond in Outlot B, which would allow the buffer of trees to remain. <br /> Bohl pointed out the MCWD would need to approve that pond. Bohl stated if the wetland in this area is <br /> disturbed,they would need to create another wetland,which is in an area that is filled with invasive <br /> PAGE 5 <br />