02-16-2016 Planning Commission Packet

Home Browse Search

16-3807 February 11,2016 Page 12 5. A small number of lots will have relatively short "back yards" where the home will be no more than 20 feet from a wetland buffer, ponding area or perimeter berm. Are these acceptable? 6. The p:roposed front setbacks have been increased since the Sketch Plan Review in order to a11ow for driveway parking without interfering with sidewalk or streets traffic.. 7. Given that the wetlands will be conta.ined within individual Iots, they likely cannot be considered as a recreational atnenity for the development as a whole. They do provide open space. Planning Commission shauld discuss whethez� this develapment should be required to create the RPUD standard 10% private recreation space. Prior discussions have suggested that the proximity to the Orono Schools campus justifies not requiring recreation area within the neighborhood. 8. Should a connecting sidewalk to OCB Road at one of the two road enbrances be established? The zntent would be to provide an alternate access ta the existing trail along the east szde of OCB Road; a crosswalk would have to be striped. 9. The perimeter benning and vegetation plans should be reviewed —will the result be an appropriate ba�ance between the need for buffering the homes form the SUTIOW1dlIIg roads while mainta.ining views into the site rather than becoming a solid barrier?. 10. Are there any other issues or concems with this application? Staff Recommendation This development proposal exhibits a significant tevel o� retmement as a result of the developer's response to issues raised during the Sketch Plan Review process. Discussion of the above topics and any canclusions xeached by the Planning Commission should provide applicant and staff with direc�ion as to whether or how the proposed plat should be further revised. Any remaining topics left unaddressed to date should be brought up for discussion. Staff recommends approvai of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment, with the caveat that the City should identify alternate sites for Yugher density development. Staff recommends approval of the rezoning to RPUD, to be formally approved at the time of final plat approval. Staffrecommends prel�minary plat approval subject to the following conditions: 1. Fle�cibility being granted for the lot area, width and setback standazds of the RPL`D District. Hardcover will be lunited to the assigned Tier 4 Ievel of 50% on each individual lot. The d.50 FAR shall be adhered to on each individual lot. 2. Development shall be subject to adherence to the proposed Basic Conservation Design Master Plan, also subject to removal of buckthorn on the site. 3. Approval of filling of Wetland #3 as proposed subject to mitigatioz� as required by MCWD (off-site mitigatian proposed) and Wetland #3 to be removed from Wetlands Overlay District. Wetlands#1 and#2 snbject to standard City Flowage and Conservation Easements, and subject to MCWD buffer requarements and City wetland setback requirements.