Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br /> Monday,August 17,2015 <br /> 6:30 o'clock p.m. <br /> The City's Comprehensive Management Plan indicates no future trails are proposed along Orchard Park <br /> Road, so there is no need for trail easements. Since a house currently exists on the site and one additional <br /> home site is being created, payment of the standard park dedication fee for one new building lot at the rate <br /> of$5,550 per lot would be appropriate. <br /> A wetland delineation has been performed but approval by the MCWD on the wetland boundaries has yet <br /> to be received. Wetlands on the property will not be impacted with the potential exception of the <br /> driveway corridor along the west side of proposed Lot 1. The actual square footage of wetland that will <br /> be filled to create the driveway is not known at this time. The City will require a Conservation and <br /> Flowage Easement over the wetlands. Measures to avoid or mitigate floodplain impacts will be critical in <br /> developing the driveway in this corridor. <br /> This subdivision will be subject to the City's Conservation Design Ordinance. At this time the applicants <br /> are in the process of having that study completed. <br /> The Planning Commission should consider the following: <br /> 1. Does the Planning Commission have any concerns about granting a lot width variance for <br /> proposed Lot 1? <br /> 2. The driveway serving Lotl will likely have wetland and floodplain impacts that need to be <br /> addressed. There would appear to be no alternatives to this driveway location in order to access <br /> the building site on Lot 1. <br /> 3. The creation of Outlot A as potential additional onsite sewage treatment area for the house at 480 <br /> Orchard Park is strongly encouraged and supported by Staf£ However,the viability of this <br /> location next to the wetland suggests a reconfiguration of Outlot A should be considered in order <br /> to make this area functional for septic system use. <br /> 4. Applicants should consider whether Outlot B can be revised to be narrower in width than the 90 <br /> feet proposed. <br /> 5. Are the applicants willing to build the shared driveway as part of the subdivision process rather <br /> than waiting until homes are constructed? <br /> 6. MCWD approval for the delineated wetland boundaries should be received prior to Council <br /> review of the preliminary plat. <br /> 7. A Conservation Design Report has yet to be submitted. Does the Planning Commission wish to <br /> review this report before making a recommendation to Council? <br /> Staff would recommend that the application be tabled to allow the applicant to address the issues raised <br /> by the City Engineer and Staff and allow the Planning Commission the opportunity to review the <br /> Conservation Design report once it is submitted. <br /> Thiesse noted the last time the Planning Commission reviewed this property,the developer was proposing <br /> to vacate the eastern boundary and looking at access from the north. <br /> Page 14 of 43 <br />