Laserfiche WebLink
ti <br />HINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF NOVEMBER 16. 1991 <br />#1691 & 1702 - CONT. <br />Mabusth explained that per the Watershed District’s regulations, <br />the rate of runoff cannot be increased across private property. <br />She noted there may be the need to develop the retention pond. <br />Chair Kelley asked if an easement would <br />retention area. <br />taken over that <br />Mabusth indicated that an easement would be taken over the area <br />and the City would also ask for a 10' wide drainage and utility <br />easement along the southern lot line. <br />Palmer asl'ed about the elevation of the property. <br />Squire confirmed that drainage from Lots 8 and 9 would drain <br />towaivl:? Palmer's property, but that runoff would be less than <br />current vunoff. He proposed that no additional grading other <br />than for normal house construction is proposed and hoped they <br />would be able to stay out of the 50' setback area. <br />Chair Kelley asked why the 50’ setback was being proposed. <br />Mabusth indicated that the 50' setback was proposed by applicants <br />in response to the neighbors' concerns within the Orono Oaks plat <br />and an attempt to minimize impact of proposed development. <br />Bellows advised that the drainage and grading plans do not show <br />final grading and she noted there is no indication as to how <br />those final elevations would be accomplished. She asked how a <br />plan as such could be sent to the Watershed District for <br />approval. <br />Mabusth noted that it has been sent to the Watershed and they are <br />awaiting a recommendation from the City. She stated that the <br />plan can be brought back to the Planning Commission after the <br />Watershed has responded and the final plan developed as an <br />information item. <br />Bellows felt that the grading shown indicates a <br />change in elevations and she did not see how that <br />achieved. <br />substantial <br />was to be <br />Greg Kellenburger, 105 Orono Orchard Road, commented that the <br />applicants had rerouted the entrance, which he felt was an <br />improvement, but the proposed entrance brings it closer to the <br />curve and that may be a problem. He felt another alternative <br />would be to route the road to ono Oaks Road for a safer access. <br />He felt that Lot 1, Block Isa questionable buildable lot. He <br />also felt that the road coula be narrower than 30' to allow for <br />maintenance of mature trees. <br />Ardis Poquette, 260 Orono Orchard Road, asked if a survey had <br />been done. <br />Mabusth noted that a survey had been submitted.