Laserfiche WebLink
• MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br /> Monday,September 19,2011 <br /> 6:30 o'clock p.m. <br /> Cheryl Granning, 3898 North Shore Drive, asked for clarification on the location of the pond and whether <br /> it would be within the proposed lots. <br /> Curtis indicated the pond would need to be located on the applicant's property and that the City Engineer <br /> will be determining whether a pond is necessary. <br /> Granning asked which direction the driveways are designed to face. <br /> Curtis indicated it is her understanding they will access on to Maple Place. <br /> Granning asked why they will access Maple Place. <br /> Curtis stated that is the applicant's preference and that accommodating storm water would be more <br /> feasible on the west side. <br /> Gaffron stated one of the potential options for a pond would be a lineal pond along the applicant's west lot <br /> line. The City will not allow two accesses and that it is most likely the pond will be to the west and <br /> driveway access on to Maple rather than Minnie Avenue. <br /> Granning commented that given the amount of traffic on Maple, she thought it would be better that it <br /> would be located off of Minnie Avenue. <br /> Paul Taylor stated that what he has seen over the 18 years he has resided in the area is that the flooding <br /> typically floods in two areas. Taylor pointed out the areas of the.flooding on the overhead. <br /> Curtis stated those details will be worked out between the City Engineer and the applicant's engineer. It is <br /> Staff's recommendation that drainage issues be addressed and resolved prior to the application going <br /> before the City Council. <br /> Schoenzeit pointed out that once the ponding requirements are determined,there will be another hearing <br /> before the City Council where the residents can comment on the plan. <br /> Thiesse asked whether the application should come back before the Planning Commission. <br /> Curtis stated if the requirement of the pond resulted in a substantial change in the development or a new <br /> restraint to construction, Staff would bring the application back before the Planning Commission. Curtis <br /> noted there is a 30-foot setback requirement in this area. <br /> Schoenzeit commented it might make sense to bring it back before the Planning Commission to allow <br /> opportunity for the public to comment on the plan rather than doing it at the City Council level. <br /> Levang stated the other alternative is to table the application so it comes back before the Planning <br /> Commission. <br /> Schoenzeit stated given the neighbors' concerns,it might be prudent to have the Planning Commission <br /> review the application again. <br /> Page <br /> 11 <br />