Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br />ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br />Monday, October 20, 2014 <br />6:30 o’clock p.m. <br />_____________________________________________________________________________________ <br />  <br />Page 23 of 28  <br />  <br />requirement that is required by the MCWD, the City’s 10-foot buffer setback would apply for a total of a <br />40-foot wetland setback. <br /> <br />The City will require flowage and conservation easements over all wetlands and buffers designated on the <br />site. Standard perimeter utility and drainage easements will be required around all the property boundaries <br />and conservation easements over wooded areas or other features may be deemed necessary following a <br />conservation design analysis. The development is subject to stormwater and drainage trunk fees and one <br />unit of park fee. <br /> <br />The City’s 2008-2030 Comprehensive Trail System Map does indicate that a future trail is planned along <br />Bayside Road. Curtis noted another development, Bayside Meadows, was required to grant a trail <br />easement over the 50-foot outlot for their road. The Planning Commission should discuss the merits of an <br />easement over this property for trail purposes adjacent to Bayside Road. In addition, the Park <br />Commission will discuss the need for a trail at their November 3 meeting. <br /> <br />The property is not located within the MUSA and therefore sewer service is not available to these <br />properties. The properties are proposed to be served by septic systems and private wells. All septic <br />systems must be located 20 feet from all property boundaries, 20 feet from structures, hardcover, and the <br />delineated edge of wetlands. Private wells should be set back three feet from structures and 50 feet from <br />septic systems. Septic system designs have been submitted to the City and have been approved. <br /> <br />As noted previously, a conservation design report has not yet been submitted. This report should identify <br />areas where trees and positive views should be preserved. The plan should also outline invasive, non- <br />native species to be removed. The Planning Commission should direct the applicant in this regard and <br />also identify areas which should be reviewed, protected, or preserved as part of the plat if appropriate. <br /> <br />Staff recommends the Planning Commission go through the known issues identified within the Staff <br />report and discuss with the applicant the available options. The Planning Commission should direct the <br />applicant regarding submittal of the conservation design plan. <br /> <br />Staff recommends approval of the preliminary plat subject to the submittal of a conservation design report <br />prior to placement on the City Council’s agenda for review. <br /> <br />The Planning Commission had no questions for Staff. <br /> <br />Peter Rennebohm, Applicant, indicated he has nothing to add to Staff’s report. <br /> <br />Chair Leskinen opened the public hearing at 9:08 p.m. <br /> <br />There were no public comments regarding this application. <br /> <br />Chair Leskinen closed the public hearing at 9:08 p.m. <br /> <br />Leskinen stated she noted in the report that Hennepin County is not fond of another curb cut and that they <br />would prefer a shared driveway. <br /> <br />Curtis indicated that is Hennepin County’s recommendation and that they are the permitting body. Curtis <br />stated since Staff did not receive any clarification from Hennepin County, they would read that as a <br />Item #01 - PC Agenda - 11/17/2014 <br />Approval of Planning Commission Minutes 10/20/2014 <br />[Page 23 of 28]