Laserfiche WebLink
MItYUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br /> Monday,June 15,2015 <br /> 6:30 o'clock p.m. <br /> Gaffron stated the Planning Commission should reopen the public hearing and receive comments from the <br /> public. <br /> Lemke stated there appears to be a flatter area that can accommodate a septic site for Lot 5. <br /> Gaffron stated to his understanding the applicant is proposing a stormwater pond in that area but that it <br /> does appear to be a good location for a septic site. <br /> Leskinen asked when approval can be anticipated from the Watershed District. <br /> Gaffron stated the applicant can probably answer that. <br /> Schoenzeit asked if there has ever been a situation where the City has been a party to a covenant similar <br /> to what is being presented here. <br /> Gaffron indicated there have been a few situations where the City has some authority over the private <br /> covenant documents or changes to a covenant document. The developments of Sugar Woods and Stone <br /> Bay are instances where the City accepted some authority within the private covenants, such as authority <br /> to approve certain changes or to ensure that certain things are done. Gaffron stated the City does not <br /> typically seek to have that type of authority since there is the possibility to miss something as time goes <br /> forward. <br /> Schoenzeit asked if the Conservation Design is an opinion document and not a finding of fact. <br /> Gaffron indicated that is correct. Gaffron stated it has not been reviewed specifically by the City <br /> Engineer or city consultant to see whether they agree with the report. <br /> George Stickney, Applicant, stated back on May 18,they proposed 11 single-family lots with eight <br /> outlots and that they received a lot of feedback from the Planning Commission and residents. Stickney <br /> noted the plan at that time conformed in every way and the drainage over the site was not being changed. <br /> Stickney stated they also met with Staff over the Conservation Design report and had a positive <br /> discussion. <br /> Stickney stated in his view there were some misconceptions about the driveway on the north end of the <br /> property to access Lot 2, Block 2, which has since been removed. Stickney stated that route was basically <br /> impossible to his standards in that it would have gone through the highest concentration of trees on the <br /> site,which has been avoided. Stickney stated originally he had two septic sites in that area but those have <br /> been relocated to reduce the tree loss. <br /> Stickney indicated he has been tweaking the design to make sure that there is minimal impact on trees, <br /> and whenever a tree is removed,two trees will be planted as replacement. <br /> Stickney stated another option he had was to change the layout to include prairie lots, but that was <br /> unacceptable to the owners of the property. Stickney stated the prairie land is sacred to the property <br /> owners and that they want that area preserved. <br /> Stickney stated on his plan, all the driveways,the septic sites, and the home sites are showing a minimal <br /> loss of trees. Stickney indicated t►e will also be planting additional trees for screening and the roadways <br /> will be lined with trees. Stickney stated the plan is that the lots will be camouflaged and to locate the <br /> Page 3 of 53 <br />