My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
07-11-2016 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
2016
>
07-11-2016 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/16/2016 10:10:24 AM
Creation date
12/16/2016 9:46:00 AM
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.
/
860
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
<br />Page 5 of 20 <br />avregae of 71 feet, ranging in actual buffer width of 40 feet adjacent to the north <br />portion of wetland area and 85 feet adjacent to the east and west portions. The <br />proposed buffer plan results in approximately 167,200 s.f. of buffers, slightly over <br />the minimum MCWD requirement of 166,400 s.f. <br />The City code requires a minimum structure setback of 35’ from the wetland <br />boundary, plus 10’ additional where the 35’ setback would be less than 10’ from a <br />MCWD required buffer. The City will require a Conservation and Flowage <br />Easement over the wetlands being preserved. <br /> <br />13. Tree and/or Woodland Impacts. <br /> <br /> SECTION TO BE DRAFTED <br /> <br />14. Landscaping. The proposed landscaping plans (Sheets B15 thru B19) will be <br />evaluated for compliance with the very detailed RPUD landscaping requirements. <br /> <br />15. Conformity with Zoning District Standards. In relation to the RPUD standards, <br />there are specific guidelines for detached single family development in Zoning <br />Code Section 78-626(8). The RPUD standards as written for detached single <br />family use do not accommodate the type of smaller, narrow lot style of development <br />that is proposed. However, the concept of a planned unit development process is <br />to allow flexibility in design. Section 78-626(16) provides for flexibility in RPUD <br />standards, as follows: <br /> <br />(16) Flexibility. The uniqueness of each RPUD requires that specifications <br />and standards for streets, utilities, public facilities and subdivisions may be <br />subject to modification from the city ordinances ordinarily governing them. <br />The city council may therefore approve streets, utilities, public facilities and <br />land subdivisions which are not in compliance with usual specifications or <br />ordinance requirements, if it finds that strict adherence to such standards or <br />requirements is not required to meet the intent of this section or to protect the <br />health, safety or welfare of the residents of the RPUD, the surrounding area or <br />the city as a whole. <br />This proposed development concept requires a significant departure (flexibility) <br />from the RPUD district lot standards for individual homesites. The table below <br />identifies specific standards which require flexibility, which the City Council finds <br />acceptable:
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.