Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br />• HELD OCTOBER 18, 1993 <br />( #10) #1877 TANDEM PROPERTIES /PETER ANDREA COMPANY - CONT. <br />Deanovic responded that a large group had visited the site including representatives of the <br />Watershed District, City staff, Army Corps of Engineers, BWSR and Steve Schirmers for septic <br />sites. In the end, City ordinances will be a determining factor. Deanovic thought 1:1 mitigation <br />may be possible. The Watershed representative felt this was an opportunity for improvements. <br />One of the main issues is that what was classified as wetlands in the past differs from current <br />definitions. <br />Most of the wetlands were classified as Type 1. Gaffron confirmed that under MPCA standards <br />there are certain types of wetlands that meet the criteria for septic installation. <br />Putnam felt their biggest problem will be dealing with the Orono ordinances relative to the <br />setbacks for septic systems and the dry buildable land. <br />Putnam gave examples of how the wetland maps differ. According to the City map, there was <br />2.66 acres of wetlands on the Coffin property but 12.15 acres have been identified by their <br />consultant using current methods. Deanovic explained that City maps were done in 1974 and <br />wetlands were identified under different standards on a black and white aerial photo. Although <br />the Dickey property showed no wetlands on City maps, surveyors designated approximately 4 <br />acres. Putnam explained that on the Coffin property of 62 acres, if the City maps were used <br />lot sizes would be 2.47 acres. If the wetlands were subtracted, lot sizes would be reduced to <br />2.08 acres. The City will have to decide how to deal with the wetland designations. <br />Deanovic commented that they had discussed with other agencies how they felt about changing <br />some of the wetlands. They were agreeable since better wetlands would be built rather than a <br />"rut in a field ". <br />Putnam stated that according to Orono's code, it they created a NURP pond or wetland, that <br />would have to be subtracted off of the two acres. At this time it is a 1:1 replacement but after <br />January 1 it will be 2:1. The way it stands now, if four acres of wetland were altered at this <br />site, four acres of wetland would have to be replaced somewhere else. This could be done on <br />site, within the Watershed District or within the County. If, for example, a wetland were <br />replaced in Medina, what benefit does that have for Orono even though it meets the State <br />requirements? <br />Putnam noted that staff had suggested to Putnam he not look at planned development since this <br />property is not in a sewered area. Meeting a 2 -acre requirement may create a problem on some <br />of the lots with the wetlands considered and meeting the 75' setback from the wetlands for septic <br />systems. <br />• 23 <br />