10-17-2005 Planning Commission Packet

Home Browse Search

� #05-3131 July 13,2005 Page 4 exploring with MCWD (Orono's LGU for WCA regulations) whether this fill/mitigation will be possible. Uszder Orono's pending ivetland ordi�zance revisions,if tl�e wetl�rnd basin is betwee�z 2.S an�l 5 acres ns anticipated, tlie City ivould require a 25'buffer nnd ad�litiori�l 20'bicffer setbnck for structures from t/ie wetlan�l, whiclr would have potential significant impacts on lzouse placemefrt c�nd builrlability for Lots 8-9-10-I1. Staff is also concerned about the location of homes so near the proposed stormwater ponding on Lots 10 and 11. E. Stormwater and Drainage Improvements and/or Easements Needed The proposed development is required to provide stormwater management systems including ponding. Easements for the natural drainageway skirting the south end of the site will be required. The entire property including wetlands and the Williamson residence lot will be subject to the Storm Water and Drainage Trunk Fee established for 2005 as $4,160 per acre for the '/2 acre zone; no fee has been established for SFR at 2-3 units per acre,but we would eapect the above rate to be in the ballpark for the proposed development. Whether the church parcel, Lot 3, should be exempt from the SW&DT Fee is an item for further discussion. F. Wetlands and Ponds: Outlot vs. Individual Easements If this site is developed via the RPUD standards,and depending on whether the road becomes public or private, it may be most appropriate to place the wetlands and ponds into a commonly owned outlot. This would have a definite impact on the gross lot area for Lots 9-10-11, which severely impacted by the proximity of proposed homes to the ponds and wetlands... G. Lot Layout and Lot Standards (RPUD) At the sketch plan review, Planning Commission concluded that the RPUD standards for SFR development are generally appropriate for this site, with a few minor revisions. The RPUD standards [Section 78-626(8)] are summarized as follows: - 15,000 sf min. dry buildable lot area (PC indicated 14,000 sf min. was acceptable) - 90' minimuin lot width at the setback line (all 9 new lots meet this using a 30' street setback...) - 125' minimum lot depth (all but Lots 2, 4 and 5 meet this when measured from the new road to the midpoint of the opposite lot line; Lot 2's short side along Willow is technically a front yard, although the narrowness of the lot and the requirement for access to the new road rather than Willow force the south side to fiinction as front yard, with fiinctional lot depth of 75'-95', and leaves only a miniinally functional rear yard... Lots 4 and 5 still have reasonably functional front and rear yards...) - 40' rear yard or 20% of lot depth, whichever is less (Lots 2 and 6 don't meet this standard but won't be much affected if it it is required) - 25' front setback on internal streets (30' was used on the plat, which allows the lots to meet the 90' ]ot width standard...)