Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br /> Monday, August 18, 2003 <br /> 6:00 o'clock p.m. <br /> (#14 #03-2937 BOB MORLOCK, Continued) <br /> With regard to Storm Water, Drainage, and Erosion Control, Waataja pointed out that 10' <br /> drainage and utility easements are proposed around all perimeter property boundaries and <br /> 5' on either side of the shared boundary in conformance with City requirements. In <br /> addition,private driveway easements shall be dedicated for a shared driveway access <br /> arrangement should a shared driveway be required. <br /> Because most of the drainage flows north-northwest on both proposed lots, the City <br /> Engineer recommends than some type of"no-grading" zone be established along the north <br /> property lines of both lots due to steep grades. This could be done in the form of <br /> conservation easements. This would prevent future owners from total clear-cutting for <br /> lawn and therefore, slow storm water run-off rates from the site. <br /> Waataj a indicated that staff recommends approval based on the following conditions: <br /> 1. Submission and approval of a final plat. <br /> 2. Implementation of the recommendations of Hennepin County. <br /> 3. Implementation of the recommendations of the City Engineer. <br /> 4. Subject to standard fees and easements. <br /> 5. The existing house and associated sheds be removed prior to issuance of building <br /> permits for either lot. <br /> Morlock indicated that he had met with Hennepin County representative Zutterstrom last <br /> week and was surprised that his comments had not yet been received by the City. Morlock <br /> reported that Zutterstrom saw no sight distance issues with the additional curb cut and <br /> would support their proposal. <br /> Chair Smith asked for any further discussion on the application. <br /> Waataj a stated that the Engineer had recommended a conservation easement in an effort to <br /> prevent further erosion to the steep slopes, thus identified as the `no grading zone'. <br /> Wells questioned the need to limit future owner's rights of the property. He pointed out <br /> that the grades do not appear to be as severe as the Engineer has indicated. <br /> Morlock asked where the easement would be. <br /> Rahn pointed out that the future developers of either lot would be required to submit a <br /> drainage and grading plan to the City prior to construction; therefore, the City could track <br /> the `no grading zone' in that way. <br /> Gaffron indicated that there would be no way to eliminate all of the water runoff from the <br /> southerly lot to the northerly lot; therefore, warranting the need for a minimal 20-30' <br /> easement and drainage plan. <br /> PAGE 28 of 30 <br />