10-21-2013 Planning Commission Packet

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, September 16, 2016 6:30 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 24 of 34 Gaffron noted each lot meets the required acreage but they have been laid out in odd shapes. There is a wetland by everyone’s estimation at this point going to require a buffer. The Watershed District will be requiring a 40-foot buffer. The City Code requires that whatever buffer the Watershed District requires, you will need an additional feet of setback. So from the boundaries of that wetland, no structure can be less than 50 feet from it. As it relates to the hardcover being proposed for this subdivision, the project will meet all the hardcover standards and is considered a Tier III, which is allowed 30 percent. Individually each lot will be approximately 20 percent or less. Gaffron stated as it relates to the driveway layout, the two back lots at either end will share a driveway with the house located next to them. There will be two shared driveways and then two other driveways in the middle of the site. As a result, you will end up with a total of four driveways in about a 460-foot width along Northern Avenue, which is not unusual for this neighborhood. Easements will be required over those two narrow corridor outlots so each property owner has the right to utilize that driveway. The Comprehensive Plan does not talk about the need for a park in this area. There is an existing regional trail located across the street. Staff would be recommending a park dedication fee at this point. If a dedication of land is recommended, it would amount to 8 percent and would be approximately 50 feet. Gaffron stated in his view there is not a need for park dedication and there is no demand for it in the Comprehensive Plan or City Code. Stormwater and drainage improvements have been reviewed by the City’s engineering consultant and those comments are included in the Planning Commission’s packet. The engineer has noted that it is likely the Watershed District will not require a stormwater management plan. In the plan that has been submitted by the applicants, on either end of the pond is shown a rain garden type drainage structure. That structure is an attempt to accumulate the drainage off the properties to the southwest before it enters the wetland. On the east end of the wetland, there would also be another rain garden that would collect the runoff. The development would be subject to stormwater and trunk fee of approximately $28,000 per City Code. City sewer and city water are available for this development. The property was provided with water in 1970 and they were charged for three water units at that time. Any additional units would require a $2800 per unit water connection charge. The property was provided with sewer in 1982, which was assessed for 2.0 acres and four units. The developable acreage for this property would be calculated at 3.74 acres net of wetland and road, leaving 1.74 acres not assessed. Any additional units above four units would incur a $600 per unit trunk charged for a total of approximately $7000. The developer has provided a Conservation Design Report, which includes a tree survey, natural resources inventory, and conservation design master plan. The Planning Commission should review the report and discuss with the applicant his plans for adhering to the recommended provisions for site management. Gaffron noted the only conservation easements recommended by the consultant are for the wetlands and wetland buffer. Although the report recommends that the tree border adjacent to Northern Avenue be preserved as a buffer to the development, it does not recommend a conservation easement be established in that area. The City Engineer, in his comments, suggests that such an easement would be appropriate. With or without an easement, Staff is skeptical that this area can realistically be preserved during construction. Item #01 - PC Agenda - 10/21/2013 Approval of PC Minutes 09/16/2013 [Page 24 of 34]