Laserfiche WebLink
� MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING C011�IlVIISSION MEETIlITG <br /> Monday,May 18,2U15 , <br /> 6:30 o'clock p.m. `�' <br /> V <br /> The developer has submitted a Conservation I3asign report. 'I1ie Ci En ineer has indicated that the � � <br /> �Y g �� <br /> report is lacking specific elements and should be amended to include those elements. The applicant has � <br /> submitbed a response to that report today but Staff has not had an opportunity to review it thoroughly. <br /> The most critical element is the importance of establishing,for the portion of the property that is being <br /> developed,what elements are being preserved,how t�ey are being prese�rved,why they are being <br /> preserved,and what tha basis is for those decisions to preserve certain eleme�s and not others. <br /> The Planning Commission should discuss the following: <br /> 1. Has the applicant demonstrated via the submitted Conservation Design report aed through other <br /> methods that there is justiScatian for the proposed impacts to tha Big Waods portion of the <br /> properiy? <br /> 2. A.re the proposed design and praservation measures as pmposed zn the draft covenant documents <br /> adequate to protiact the site environmental elemants of importance7 <br /> 3. Are there any other concems that need to be addressed? <br /> Stai�recommends the applicant be advised to address the items detailed in the City Engineer's comments. <br /> In addition,preliminary plat should not move forward until or unless docwmentatian is provided <br /> confirming that the MCWD has approved ti�e wetland delineation boundaries. Staff further recommends <br /> that specific driveway corridors for alI nine of the easberly lots be shown on the preliminary plat drawing, <br /> as each site has trees,wetlands, or topography that may impact or could be i�cnpacted by driveway <br /> locations. <br /> The Planning Commission should hold the public hearing and receive comments from the public. <br /> Following discussion of this application,the Planning Commission should pmvide the applicant and Staff <br /> with direction as to whether or how the proposed plat should be mvised. <br /> Lemke asked if the correct application number for this application is 15-3720. <br /> GafFmn indicated he sent an e-mail to the Planning Commissioners today noting the correct number of the <br /> application is 15-3739. Sta�s report has been changed to reflact that change. Gai�'ron stated there were <br /> also a couple of other specific cbamges to the memo relating ta the owner o�the property not being part of <br /> the development procsss but is merely selling the proparty. Gaffron stabed outsida of that,t�ere was not a <br /> great deal of change to Stai�s memo and that a copy of StafPs revised report has been included in the <br /> public paeket located outside ofthe Council chambers. Gaf�'ron noted a significant amawat of information <br /> regarding this application has bean submitted in the last 24 hours. <br /> Landgraver asked if there is a precedent for developing or not developing land lrnown as Big Woods from <br /> a historical perspective. Landgraver noted there are a nuznber of very important environment$1 <br /> components with this development and that Staff has noted the City does not have a lot of tools for <br /> preveniang tree reinoval. <br /> Ga$ron stated at the time of the development of t�e Spring Hili Golf Course,everytb�ing noRh of the <br /> Connty Road 6 portion of the property was Big Woods. There were no specific requirements at that time <br /> that protected the Big Woods. Gaffron stated after a lot of discussion and a year-long assessment of the <br /> Page 10 of 37 <br />