Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br /> Tuesday,February 16,2016 <br /> 6:30 o'clock p.m. <br /> Gaffron stated from the standpoint of what is happening with the school traffic, there have been ongoing <br /> discussions among school personnel regarding potential improvements or changes to that road to address <br /> the concerns about traffic. Gaffron indicated he has not been part of those discussions and that he does <br /> not know what is proposed or being contemplated. <br /> McGrann stated he just wants to make sure this development is part of those discussions. <br /> Gaffron stated one of the early discussion points was whether there should be a sidewalk connecting the <br /> neighbornood to the signalized intersection. Gaffron stated the applicants are proposing a sidewalk along <br /> the internal road to the intersection. Gaffron noted there is currently no sidewalk except for on the east <br /> side and that the Planning Commission should discuss whether there should also be added sidewalk built <br /> as part of this development. <br /> Thiesse asked when that intersection will be reconstructed. <br /> Gaffron indicated he is not sure when it is scheduled and that it could be three or four years out. <br /> Schoenzeit stated the traffic light controls are not the most ideal as it relates to timing. <br /> Leskinen asked what wou(d happen if the two potential temporary cul-de-sacs are not built. <br /> Gaffron stated in his view the temporary cul-de-sacs need to be built. Gaffron stated in addition to the <br /> cul-de-sac at the end of the road,there needs to be something erected that lets people know this road is <br /> intended to be continued at some point in the future. <br /> Thiesse asked if there will be surmountable curb. <br /> Gaffron stated there could be some sort of wooden barrier at the end and that he is not sure if the <br /> developer is proposing a berm curb or something else. <br /> Lemke asked if the swamp or wetland area was included whether that would increase the density. <br /> Gaffron indicated it would not change the density either way and that the wetland areas as well as the <br /> required wetland buffers have been excluded from the density calculation. Gaffron noted Staff normally <br /> has not excluded wetland buffers in the past but the Metropolitan Council does when they make their <br /> calculation. <br /> Gaffron stated if the wetland is within a single outlot, the question would become how it could be made <br /> an amenity. To accomplish that,the City could require some sort of pathway through the buffers, such as <br /> a walking trail. Gaffron noted the Northern Avenue project allowed the lots to go through the wetland but <br /> that it did not have a walking path. Gaffron indicated there are two ways to do it and that there will be <br /> trade-offs no matter which way it is done. <br /> Leskinen asked if the City has an alternate location somewhere in the City for higher density. <br /> Gaffron stated Staff has been discussing that for the past month or two and met with representatives from <br /> the Metropolitan Council at the end of January. The first question asked was whether a Comprehensive <br /> Page 14 of 30 <br />