Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br /> Monday,November 17, 2003 <br /> 6:00 o'clock p.m. <br /> (#11) #03-2961 NINA WILDMAN, 745 SPRING HILL ROAD, PRELIMINARY <br /> PLAT, Continued <br /> would be $5,550 per lot for Lots 2 and 3 under the 2003 fee schedule; Lot 1 as an existing <br /> residence would not be subject to the Park Fee). <br /> Gaffron noted that the City Engineer has indicated that stormwater treatment provisions <br /> should be added to the plan. In addition, the subdivision is subject to the Storm Water and <br /> Drainage Trunk Fee established by City Ordinance for a total fee of$32,400. <br /> Septic Systems Inspector Matt Bolterman has reviewed the submitted septic testing and <br /> confirms that each lot has suitable sites for adequately-sized septic systems. <br /> Gaffron explained that a small portion, approximately 300 s.f. of the proposed driveway <br /> loop in the Outlot would be within 75' of the OHWL where no hardcover and no roads or <br /> driveways are normally allowed per Code Sections 78-1286(c) and 78-1288(a). A variance <br /> is necessary for any new road or driveway construction within 75' of the OHWL. <br /> Gaffron pointed out that the property is primarily open fields, with perhaps only 10% of it <br /> being wooded. The only woodland impacts anticipated are related to the loop driveway, <br /> where the loop center is intended to remain wooded but the driveway will result in some <br /> removals. While there are no historically significant features on this property known to <br /> staff, the location of the property with bluffs abutting a water body suggest the potential <br /> for archaeological significance. The applicant should contact the State Historical <br /> Preservation Office (SHPO) and inquire as to the need for an archaeological review. <br /> Gaffron presented a summary of Issues for Discussion: <br /> 1. Width variance for Lot 3 - typical for lots abutting a cul-de-sac. <br /> 2. Hardcover variance required for any roadway expansion within 75' of OHW. <br /> 3. Road upgrade to meet City Code and Minnesota Uniform Fire Code standards: <br /> a) should upgrade be required? <br /> b) to what standard? <br /> c) does applicant have authority to do upgrade over existing easements? <br /> d) environmental and aesthetic impacts of upgrade? <br /> 4. Would/should voluntary limitations on the future development of these lots <br /> influence the City's position on road upgrades? <br /> 5. Status of second dock and pathway. <br /> PAGE 24 of 41 <br />