My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
01-27-2014 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
2014
>
01-27-2014 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/15/2015 4:44:55 PM
Creation date
4/6/2015 1:13:23 PM
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.
/
369
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
13-3637 <br /> November 14,2013 <br /> Page 11 <br /> The developer will be responsible for installation of sewer (and water?) laterals to serve the <br /> development. Per past City practice there will not be a connection charge to Orono for sewer or <br /> water, but pertinent Long Lake connection charges will apply. <br /> Absent confirmation that there is an easement for the existing municipal sewer in proposed <br /> Lots 1 and 2, an easement for said sewer line will become a plat requirement. <br /> Observations and Issues for Consideration or Discussion <br /> 1. Planning Commission should consider whether RPUD is the appropriate rezoning option <br /> for this development. Staff believes RPUD is the only viable available option for <br /> development of this parcel in the manner for which it is guided in the CMP. <br /> 2. Based on the overall grading plan, development of this site will result in removal of a <br /> majority of the existing tree backdrop that separates the easterly and westerly portions of <br /> the property. The areas remaining undisturbed will mostly be limited to wetlands and the <br /> treed areas along and past the creek on Lots 3-4-5. A beefed-up landscaping plan may help <br /> to soften the visual impacts that will be created. <br /> 3. The proposed road corridor is directly across from existing homes which front on Willow, <br /> and the headlights from cars leaving the subdivision could become an annoyance. There <br /> may not be a solution to this potential problem. <br /> 4. Applicants should identify their intent for the remnant corridor extending to Watertown <br /> Road from the easterly parcel. <br /> 5. Via the RPUD process, certain defined development standards that are not strictly met can <br /> be allowable through granting `flexibility' rather than via a strict variance proceeding. This <br /> staff report identifies a number of areas where the RPUD requirements are not being <br /> adhered to. Planning Commission should discuss each of these items and determine <br /> whether they should be allowed. <br /> a. Required 50' setback from Willow Drive for Lot 1 Block 1 and Lot 1 Block 2. A <br /> setback of 25' is proposed. Requiring 50' will potentially eliminate one lot overall, <br /> and a re-design of the entire lot layout; allowing 25' will place two homes very near <br /> the road and perhaps only 15' from a future trail... A majority of the homes in the <br /> Hackberry neighborhood across the street along Willow Drive are set back 50', and <br /> only one is less than 35' from the street lot line. <br /> b. The substandard lot widths for Lots 3-4-5 which abut the cul-de-sac should be <br /> considered as to whether they have any negative impacts. <br /> c. Three of the seven lots have contiguous dry buildable areas less than the minimum <br /> 15,000 s.f. RPUD standard; four exceed the standard. How does this affect the <br /> development? <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.