My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
07-16-2007 Planning Commission Packet
Orono
>
Planning Commission
>
2007
>
07-16-2007 Planning Commission Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/5/2012 3:52:53 PM
Creation date
7/5/2012 3:52:42 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
174
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
� p � <br /> � <br /> 07-3257 <br /> 10 January 2007 <br /> Page 4 of 4 <br /> this report, the City will require a Flowage and Conservation Easement over all wetlands <br /> designated on the site. The applicant is advised to avoid any impacts to wetlands which can be <br /> avoided by proper site layout. The MCWD is the City's LGU for administration of the Wetland <br /> Conservation Act rules. <br /> Woodland Impacts & Conservation Design <br /> This project is not for the creation of new building sites. Therefore the project may not fall <br /> under the scope of the City's Comprehensive Plan Amendment regarding Conservation Design. <br /> Issues for Discussion <br /> 1. The applicant's proposal to maintain Fox Street addresses for both properties does not <br /> necessarily result in consistent addressing. While the existing "through" driveway may need <br /> to be maintained for emergency access purposes; staff does not necessarily feel that a Fox <br /> Street address without frontage on Fox Street is the ideal result. <br /> 2. Considering the existing shared driveway situation off of Fox Street, does the Planning <br /> Commission feel that the driveway should be platted as an outlot? <br /> 3. Considering all of the issues; should this subdivision be done as a lot line rearrangement or as <br /> a re-plat? <br /> 4. Is there any reason this proposal should be subject to the Conservation Design Master <br /> ' Planning process? <br /> 5. Does Planning Commission have any other specific concerns about development of this <br /> property? <br /> Summary <br /> The goal of this review is to provide the developer with an overview of the pertinent City <br /> ordinances and how they affect the proposed plat, and to discuss the strengths and weaknesses of <br /> the proposal. The above memo reveals a number of issues with the lot line rearrangement and <br /> should provide direction to the applicant regarding the subdivision. During the sketch plan <br /> review, the developer should advise whether any of the issues noted present particular problems, <br /> so that those issues can be discussed and the potential for approval or denial of variances to code <br /> standards can be addressed by the Planning Commission. Planning Commission should review <br /> each topic and identify any issues to which the developer should pay special attention. Staff <br /> would recommend that the property be re-platted as there are a number of issues which a lot line <br /> rearrangement will not adequately deal with. <br /> - 4 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.