Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br /> Monday,August 21,2017 <br /> 6:30 o'clock p.m. <br /> need to be reduced and the remaining lots made bigger, which is partly why the applicant is proposing <br /> this as a sketch plan. <br /> Barnhart stated the yellow on the overhead depicts the wetland,the green is the wetland buffer, and the <br /> pinkish color is the wetland setback. Barnhart noted the City has an additional ten feet of setback in <br /> addition to the Watershed District's requirements. The area in blue is a proposed conservation easement <br /> and the MUSA boundary is depicted in pink. The property is adjacent to the MUSA but not included <br /> within that boundary and would require a Comprehensive Plan Amendment. <br /> The developer has submitted four different house styles which were included in the Planning Commission <br /> packet. <br /> The property is within the defined Rural Area of the City in which new development is expected to occur <br /> with lot sizes of two to five acres. The boundary between the defined Urban and Rural Areas was <br /> established in the 1980 Community Management Plan. At that time the boundary was consistent with the <br /> USA line and it has been the City's intent to avoid creating new pockets of higher density within the <br /> defined Rural Area. <br /> Issues for discussion by the Planning Commission include the following: <br /> 1. Is the property in a location where the City should depart from the current zoning and <br /> Comprehensive Plan guiding and allow higher density development? <br /> 2 If so,what are appropriate standards for such a development? <br /> 3. Portions of the property located less than 250 feet from the creek are not eligible to be rezoned to <br /> RPUD and therefore would not benefit from flexibility in terms of lot standards. The applicants <br /> are requesting that these areas be included in the RPUD rezoning. <br /> 4. The property is not in the MUSA and therefore is not eligible to be provided with municipal <br /> sewer. Is expansion of the MUSA boundary appropriate for this project and this parcel? If so, <br /> what other parcels should be identified for higher density to compensate for reduction of density <br /> buffer? <br /> Barnhart noted development of the site with septic systems would be difficult given the extreme <br /> topography and it is likely only a small number of homes can be supported with the use of septic systems. <br /> 5. The steep slopes surrounding the existing home site are heavily wooded. Development of new <br /> homes on the property will likely result in significant and substantial impacts to the topography <br /> and vegetation of the site. Would this be consistent with the rural residential goals and visions of <br /> the Comprehensive Plan? <br /> 6. Should the internal road be public or private? <br /> Barnhart stated the project would be a departure from the City's vision for the Rural Area. The proposed <br /> density requires municipal sewer but it does not meet the Metropolitan Council's standards for expanding <br /> the MUSA. If added to the MUSA, it would likely require guiding other properties for higher density. <br /> Page 21 of 25 <br />