Laserfiche WebLink
, , 15�774 <br /> August 12,2015 <br /> Pege 7 of 8 <br /> the Tanager Lake Bridge does place some limitations for the size of boats that can navigate through <br /> it� Whether such a dock coizid be established is outside the scope of this subdivision review but <br /> could be taken up be the applicant via a separate application under MunicipaJ Code Section 943�6 <br /> tbru 94-38, "Joint Use of Lake Facilities". LMCD appz�oval Iikely wiil also be required. <br /> Summary o�'Issues for Discussion <br /> 1. Does developer intend to do any grading of individual driveways or building pads as part <br /> of the initial development improvements? <br /> 2. The impact of MCWD-requxred wetland buffers is sigiaificant, especi,ally for the potential <br /> house szte in Lot 1. If 7S' buffers are required for certain wedands,the impact may be <br /> more critical. <br /> 3. The proposed public cul-de-sac road length of 1600 feet serving 13 homes exceeds City <br /> standards, but is sirxulaz to other cul-de-sacs in Orono. Are there any feasible alternatives <br /> for ttris site? <br /> 4. Applicant should address the potential concerns expressed by the City Engineer with the <br /> cul-de-sac design and location. The impact on the adjoining properties of the road <br /> extension as well as what should happen with the existing cul-de-sac need discussion. <br /> 5. For discussion is whether there should be covenants or easements es�ablished tfl protect the <br /> various significa�nt tree stands identified in the Conservation Design report. <br /> 6. Should a trail connection corridor be dedicated andlor constructed from the new cul-de-sac <br /> to the Dakota Trail for neighborhood use? <br /> 7. Wetland boundary and buffer width confirmations from MCWD should be submitted prior <br /> to moving this application forward to Council. <br /> $. The Conservation Design Report as submitted appears to be incomplete and contaiz�s errors <br /> — a comp�ete version should be provided for review prior to Council review of the <br /> preliminary plat. <br /> 9. Applicant should address the many engineering items of concern noted i,n the City <br /> Engineer's comment letter. <br /> 10. Are there any other concerns that need to be addressed? <br /> Sfaff Recommendahon <br /> Applicant should be advised to adr�ress the ftems detailed in the City Engineer's comments, and <br /> address the issues for dascussion nated above. <br /> PJ,antung Commission should hold the Public Hearing and rece�ve camments from the public. Staff <br /> has had verbai cominunication from parties in the Foxhill neighborhood,and we aze aware that the <br /> applicant has met with neighborhoad representatives. <br /> Staff would recommend that the application be tabled to allow the applican#to address the issues. <br /> Another option would be to forward to Council subject to applicant addressing the noted items <br /> prior ta Conncil review of the preliminary plat. <br />