Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br /> Monday,August 17,2015 <br /> 6:30 dclock p.m. <br /> 2. The impact of MCWD required wetland buffers is significant,especially for the potential house <br /> site in Lot 1. If 75-foot buffers are required for certain wetlands,the impact may be more critical. <br /> 3. The proposed public cul-de-sac road length of 1,600 feet serving 13 homes exceeds City <br /> standards but is similar to other cul-de-sacs in Orono. Are there any feasible alternatives for this <br /> site? <br /> 4. Applicant should address the potential concerns expressed by the City Engineer with the cul-de- <br /> sac design and location. The impact on the adjoining properties of the road extension as well as <br /> what should happen with the existing cul-de-sac need discussion. <br /> 5. Should there be covenants or easements established to protect the various significant tree stands <br /> identified in the Conservation Design report? <br /> 6. Should a trail connection corridor be dedicated and/or constructed from the new cul-de-sac to the <br /> Dakota Trail for neighborhood use? <br /> 7. Wetland boundary and buffer width confirmations from MWD should be submitted prior to <br /> moving this application forward to Council. <br /> 8. The Comprehensive Design Report as submitted appears to be incomplete and contains errors. A <br /> complete version should be provided for review prior to Council review of the preliminary plat. <br /> 9. Applicant should address the many engineering items of concern noted in the City Engineer's <br /> comment letter. <br /> The Planning Commission should review the staff report and City Engineer's report, as well as the <br /> submitted documentation, hold the public hearing and accept public comments, and then either <br /> recommend approval with conditions or table for further information and/or revisions. <br /> Lemke asked if some of the engineering concerns may not be able to be rectified. <br /> Gaffron stated Page 6 lists the general concerns. Gaffron stated determining where the actual edges of the <br /> bluff can be resolved. The applicant will need to do an analysis of the stormwater system, which would <br /> be required prior to final plat approval. The City Engineer is recommending that it be completed now <br /> since it may impact lot lines. Stormwater ponding near the cul-de-sac is also something the City Engineer <br /> is requesting more detail on as well as the retaining wall design. Gaffron stated in his view the applicant <br /> should be able to address all of the items listed. <br /> Leskinen asked whether Staff has looked at other options outside of extending Heritage. Leskinen asked <br /> if there is a possibility of coming off of Shoreline. <br /> Gaffron stated there is a long driveway going up to the existing house, a large wetland, and the existing <br /> house. Right behind the house it drops off into a bluff area. The difficulty in trying to extend the road to <br /> serve the three homes is being able to navigate the bluffs. Gaffron indicated the slopes in that area range <br /> between 30 to 50 percent. Gaffron stated it would also have huge impacts on the trees and change the <br /> whole concept of what they are proposing. Gaffron stated he is not sure whether the property owner <br /> would share the private driveway. Gaffron stated in his view there are no other viable options for a road. <br /> Page 29 of 43 <br />