Laserfiche WebLink
Metadata
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015 Laserfiche. All rights reserved.
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br /> Monday,August 19 2013 <br /> 6:30 o'clock p.m. <br /> Gaffron stated to his knowledge they do not and that the only recent subdivision was done a number of <br /> years ago and the ordinance was not in effect. <br /> Landgraver noted a higher standard would be applied to this property than the other properties in the area. <br /> Landgraver commented this is a public process and the neighbors have expressed some concerns, but that <br /> some of them are construction related and behavioral in terms of the current developments that are not <br /> completed which are unrelated to this application. Landgraver stated the concerns that are within the <br /> purview of the Planning Commission are the concerns regarding the location of the driveway,the length <br /> of the driveway, and the ability for emergency vehicles to access the property. Landgraver asked whether <br /> this driveway would require the loop at the end. <br /> Gaffron indicated the proposed driveway is approximately 500 feet long and does not meet the 600' <br /> threshold. <br /> Landgraver stated the Planning Commission does acknowledge the concerns that were raised by the <br /> neighbors but that the Planning Commission is limited in what it can do as it relates to some of them. <br /> Landgraver asked if there are any concerns regarding the slope of the driveway and possible runoff. <br /> Gaffron indicated a grading plan has not been submitted and would not come into play until the time they <br /> construct the house. Gaffron stated in his view the area will be cut and filled to keep the slope of the <br /> driveway at less than 10 percent. The City Engineer was specifically asked whether there will be a <br /> requirement for stormwater ponding or a rain garden to deal with the runoff, and it was noted that the <br /> Watershed District likely will not require that. Gaffron noted the housing plans and grading plans have <br /> not been finalized at this point. <br /> Schoenzeit pointed out the Planning Commission will likely not see either one of these properties again <br /> since they are not requesting any variances. Schoenzeit commented now is the time for the Planning <br /> Commission to address any concerns they may have. <br /> Lemke stated the Planning Commission is basically deciding whether these two properties are dividable. <br /> Landgraver noted there are nine items that Staff would like submitted by the applicant. <br /> Gaffron indicated that is correct and that the Planning Commission may want to see the report generated <br /> from the Conservation Design analysis. <br /> Landgraver asked if this application is approved, in terms of how the items are being marketed or whether <br /> other projects are being completed timely, whether that is something that can be addressed at the City <br /> Council. <br /> Gaffron stated the City Council always has the ability to add conditions that the Planning Commission did <br /> not add and that the City Council will approve a preliminary plat resolution and then a final plat <br /> resolution. <br /> Thiesse noted the last project done by this developer was a multi property development and this is a single <br /> house. Thiesse commented it sometimes takes time to sell a property and that the developer is simply <br /> moving down the line on another property. <br /> Page 19 of 28 <br />