09-19-2016 Planning Commission Packet

Home Browse Search

' 16-3855 September 14,2016 Page 9 of 10 Wetlands on Site and/or Impacted The property contains 4 areas that have been delineated as wetland; confirmation of the boundaries of those wetlands is pending MCWD review. The smallest of the four is potentially an 'incidental' wetland and likely would be mitigated on site. A linear wetland near the center of the property is a possible candidate for restoration. The two major wetlands, in the NW quadrant of the property and at the lakeshore, would be protected as-is, subject to MCWD buffer requirements and City of Orono conservation and flowage easements. The MCWD would be involved in establishment of any wetland mitigation requirements. The City will require a minimum structure setback of 35' from the wetland boundary, plus 10' additional where the 35' setback would be less than 10' from a MCWD required buffer. Tree and/or Woodland Impacts Approximately half of the site is wooded, with most of that growth occurring in the past 50 years. A tree survey will be required as part of the conservation design process. Substantial woods along the upland-wetland boundary near the lakeshore is likely to impede views of the lake for Lots 1-2-3 as currently depicted, and staff would expect the owners would be wanting to remove portions of that to gain lake views from new homes. Conservation Design The developer is advised that this subdivision will be subject to the City's Conservation Design Ordinance. The property will be reviewed in terms of the Rural Oasis goals and policies which have been approved by the City Council and are supported within the ordinance. The preliminary plat application should include a complete conservation design analysis of the entire site for review. Archaeological Site Proximity Staff is unaware of any archaeological sites within the property; the applicant should contact the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) to confirm. Summary of Issues for Consideration Staff suggests that the primary focus for consideration and discussion by the Planning Commission should include the following topics: l. The property has been zoned and guided for 2-acre single family development for many decades. The current Land Use Plan guiding for Low Density Residential Use by suggesting a density range of 0.5-2.0 units per acre was established to reflect the various historic densities of development within the defined Rural Area, but was not intended to direct that land historically zoned for 2-acre lots should be changed to higher densities. The City specifically guided certain carefully-selected properties for higher density in 2010 to meet Met Council goals; this was not one of those properties. Therefore, the proposed development is a significant departure from the historic planned development pattern for this site. Does Planning Commission find compelling reasons to support the proposed higher-density use? 2. If higher density for a portion of the site is deemed to be acceptable, is Planning Commission comfortable with the 15,000-20,000 s.f. lot sizes generally proposed in the RPUD portion of the site? Do these lot sizes provide a reasonable transition between the rural2-acre lots to the north and the variety of development types to the west and south? Or should a different RPUD lot size be required? Is such a transition even necessary?