Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br /> Monday,June 15,2015 <br /> 6:30 o'clock p.m. <br /> The developer has also revised the draft covenants such that he number of significant trees allowed to be <br /> removed from the Big Woods Lots 5 through 8 without requiring 2 for 1 replacement is reduced from 18 <br /> to 15. <br /> Gaffron stated the proposed driveway locations are also now depicted on the preliminary plat drawings. <br /> It appears that the suggested driveway locations do not conflict with septic sites or anticipated wetland <br /> buffers, with the exception of Lots 2, 5, and 8. On Lot 5, the proposed driveway is shown in the narrow <br /> gap between the primary and alternate drain field sites on a side slope of 25 percent. This driveway <br /> location likely will require cudfill on either side, which may have negative impacts on the septic system, <br /> and should be reconsidered. On Lots 2 and 8,the driveways appear to have less than the required 10-foot <br /> separation from the sewage treatment mound locations. The applicant should review other options for <br /> those driveways. <br /> The plans also indicate proposed grading for building pads on Lots 3, 4, and 5. The applicant should <br /> confirm that the intent is creation of actual pads that would result in new existing grades for measurement <br /> of house height and number of stories calculations. <br /> Gaffron noted the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District has not approved the boundaries of the wetlands <br /> as shown on the preliminary plat drawings. Preliminary plat approval by the City Council should not be <br /> granted until the wetland boundaries have been confirmed. <br /> Gaffron noted the revised plans have not been reviewed by the City Engineer as of this writing. A review <br /> by the City Engineer will be necessary before the preliminary plat goes before the City Council. In <br /> addition, wetland boundaries must be confirmed prior to Council review. <br /> The Planning Commission should review the following issues: <br /> L The revisions to the plan, especially the removal of one of the Big Woods lots, would appear to <br /> be a very positive step. The Planning Commission should decide whether this change is <br /> sufficient and whether there are any additional changes that should be made. <br /> 2. Are there any negative impacts related to adding a lot along Hunter Drive that will need to be <br /> mitigated? Should additional screening of that lot be required, given the probable location of <br /> the house in the open field 250 feet east of Hunter Drive? <br /> 3. Are the proposed design and preservation measures as proposed in the draft Covenant Document <br /> and its exhibits adequate to protect the site environmental elements of importance? Is the <br /> applicant willing to grant to the City conservation easements within individual lots to allow for a <br /> greater level of protection than simply homeowner association covenants? <br /> 4. Has the applicant adequately addressed the requests for additional information as noted in the <br /> notice of Planning Commission action? <br /> Staff recommends that the applicant be advised that further review by the City Engineer may result in <br /> additional items needing to be addressed. The applicant should also address the potential conflicts <br /> between septic sites and driveways prior to Council review. Finally,preliminary plat review by the City <br /> Council should not move forward until or unless documentation is provided confirming that the MCWD <br /> has approved the wetland delineation boundaries. <br /> Page 2 of 53 <br />