My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
09-19-2005 Planning Commission Packet
Orono
>
Planning Commission
>
2005
>
09-19-2005 Planning Commission Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/4/2012 3:49:25 PM
Creation date
4/4/2012 3:49:04 PM
Metadata
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
384
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
#OS-3131 <br /> - July 13,2005 <br /> Page 7 <br /> Issues for Consideration or Discussion <br /> 1. Planning Commission should determine whetlier RPUD is the appropriate rezoning <br /> option for this development. Planning Coinmission may also wish to discuss whether <br /> rezoning proposci Lot 3 (the remaining church properry) to RPUD is appi•opriate, or <br /> whether it should reinain as a conditional use in the RR-1B zone. <br /> 2. Applica.nt must provide a suitable plans and elevation views showing how development <br /> of the site can meet the City's Conservation Design goals. <br /> 3. Under Orono's pending wetland ordinance revisions, if the wetland basin is between 2.5 <br /> and 5 acres as anticipated,the City would require a 25' buffer and additiona120' buffer <br /> setback for structures from the wetland, which would have potential significant inipacts <br /> on house placernent and buildability for Lots 8-9-10-11. <br /> 4. If this site is developed via the RPUD standards, and depending on�whether the road <br /> becomes public or private, it may be most appropriate to place the wetlands and ponds <br /> into a commonly owned outlot. Either way, the ponds and wetlands severely limit the use <br /> of Lots 9-10-11. <br /> 5. Planning Commission should review the confoimity with lot standards as noted on the <br /> table on Page 2. <br /> 6. Planning Commission should discuss and make a recommendation as to whether both the 15%limit <br /> and the FAR should apply to this development, or just the FAR. <br /> 7. Planning Comnlission should discuss whether the road should be public or private, and <br /> the ramifications of each option. <br /> 8. PlanniiZg Conunission should discuss the options for meeting the 10%recreation area <br /> requirement. <br /> 9. Developer should advise as to whether he will be pursuing City water fronl Long Lake, <br /> and advise staff and PlasuZing Conunission as to any recent discussions he has had with <br /> long Lake in regards to this plat proposal. <br /> Staff Recommendation <br /> Discussion of the above issues should provide applicant and staff with direction as to how the <br /> proposed plat should be revised. Given that there is a wetland nioratorium in effect,iio actions can <br /> be taken on the aspects of the plat that impact wetlands. Staff reconunends tabling for further plan <br /> refinemeilt. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.