Laserfiche WebLink
MINOTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br /> Monday,June 15,2015 <br /> 6:30 o'clock p.m. <br /> Leskinen noted Orono has very, very strict regulations as it regards the lakeshore and that the City makes <br /> every effort to protect the lake. <br /> Gaffron stated Orono and the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District will work together to make sure this <br /> development meets all of the required standards. Gaffron stated he expects the City will do its part to <br /> ensure that whatever required phosphorus management is necessary will be done under the TMDL. <br /> Gaffron stated the key thing to this development is that the City and the Watershed District will do all of <br /> the standard calculations and guarantee to the extent possible that the engineering will handle the <br /> phosphorus and manage the lake properly. <br /> Leskinen noted the applicants anticipate they will be receiving approval from the Watershed District in <br /> the near future. Leskinen asked if Staff requires that before engineer review. <br /> Gaffron stated it would be very helpful to have that information since the buffers affect a lot of the <br /> calculations. Gaffron indicated the engineer will review the preliminary plan to ensure there are no <br /> issues. <br /> Leskinen asked if that needs to be part of any motion. <br /> Gaffron recommended the motion include the requirement that the MCWD permit be received prior to the <br /> application going before the City Council. <br /> Lemke asked when the engineer's review will be done. <br /> Gaffron stated it is likely the engineer's review will take around a week. Gaffron indicated there will be <br /> engineer review of the preliminary plat and then again as part of final plat. <br /> Leskinen stated the changes that have been made are very positive and that she is happy to see the lot on <br /> the upper part removed, which is where a lot of the neighbors' concerns centered around. Leskinen stated <br /> that change has made a huge difference and that she is now more inclined to move forward with the <br /> application. <br /> Leskinen stated she did have one additional comment regarding a concern with the cul-de-sac and having <br /> driveways without the cul-de-sac. Leskinen stated she is not sure whether she agrees with that possibility <br /> since there are four lots coming off of that, which means a cul-de-sac is required. <br /> Gaffron indicated that is correct. Gaffron stated the situation is that the cul-de-sac was relocated, and the <br /> question is whether it can be moved further down. Gaffron stated if it is relocated,there could be <br /> multiple driveways that do not come off of the cul-de-sac, which is problematic from a code standpoint. <br /> Gaffron stated the other area where the cul-de-sac could be located is in a fairly steep area and will <br /> require cuts or fills. Gaffron stated the question is whether the cul-de-sac should be relocated with long <br /> driveways coming off of it,which would require a variance. It would also possibly require that each one <br /> of the driveways have a loop on Lots 6, 7, and 8 for emergency vehicle access or a wider driveway. <br /> Gaffron asked whether the driveway would require a cut or fill. <br /> Page 7 of 53 <br />