Laserfiche WebLink
� , <br /> MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br /> Monday,May 18,2015 <br /> 6:30 o'clock p.m. <br /> The developer has submitted a Conservation Design report. The City Engineer has indicated that the <br /> report is lacking specific elements and should be amended to include those elements. The applicant has <br /> submitted a response to that report today but Staff has not had an opportunity to review it thoroughly. <br /> The most critical element is the importance of establishing, for the portion of the property that is being <br /> developed, what elements are being preserved, how they are being preserved, why they are being <br /> preserved, and what the basis is for those decisions to preserve certain elements and not others. <br /> The Planning Commission should discuss the following: <br /> 1. Has the applicant demonstrated via the submitted Conservation Design report and through other <br /> methods that there is justification for the proposed impacts to the Big Woods portion of the <br /> property? <br /> 2. Are the proposed design and preservation measures as proposed in the draft covenant documents <br /> adequate to protect the site environmental elements of importance? <br /> 3. Are there any other concerns that need to be addressed? <br /> Staff recommends the applicant be advised to address the items detailed in the City Engineer's comments. <br /> In addition, preliminary plat should not move forward until or unless documentation is provided <br /> confirming that the MCWD has approved the wetland delineation boundaries. Staff further recommends <br /> that specific driveway corridors for all nine of the easterly lots be shown on the preliminary plat drawing, <br /> as each site has trees, wetlands, or topography that may impact or could be impacted by driveway <br /> locations. <br /> The Planning Commission should hold the public hearing and receive comments from the public. <br /> Following discussion of this application,the Planning Commission should provide the applicant and Staff <br /> with direction as to whether or how the proposed plat should be revised. <br /> Lemke asked if the correct application number for this application is 15-3720. <br /> Gaffron indicated he sent an e-mail to the Planning Commissioners today noting the correct number of the <br /> application is 15-3739. Staff's report has been changed to reflect that change. Gaffron stated there were <br /> also a couple of other specific changes to the memo relating to the owner of the property not being part of <br /> the development process but is merely selling the property. Gaffron stated outside of that,there was not a <br /> great deal of change to Staffls memo and that a copy of Staff's revised report has been included in the <br /> public packet located outside of the Council chambers. Gaffron noted a significant amount of information <br /> regarding this application has been submitted in the last 24 hours. <br /> Landgraver asked if there is a precedent for developing or not developing land known as Big Woods from <br /> a historical perspective. Landgraver noted there are a number of very important environmental <br /> components with this development and that Staff has noted the City does not have a lot of tools for <br /> preventing tree removal. <br /> Gaffron stated at the time of the development of the Spring Hill Golf Course,everything north of the <br /> County Road 6 portion of the property was Big Woods. There were no specific requirements at that time <br /> that protected the Big Woods. Gaffron stated after a lot of discussion and a year-long assessment of the <br /> Page 10 of 37 <br />