Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br />ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br />Monday, September 15, 2014 <br />6:30 o’clock p.m. <br />_____________________________________________________________________________________ <br />  <br />Page 44 of 59  <br />  <br />environmental issues that would interfere with the Metropolitan Council’s land use decision. The <br />decision by the Metropolitan Council is to determine whether the amendment is consistent with their <br />regional planning. Grittman noted at this time the Comprehensive Plan Amendment has not been <br />approved by the Metropolitan Council pending receipt of the EAW findings. <br /> <br />Grittman stated the Environmental Assessment Worksheet was published in July as part of the <br />Environmental Quality Board’s review process. A number of comments were received, with the majority <br />of the comments relating to potential plat issues or related follow-up enforcement and code application. <br />The applicant has provided supplemental information related to the potential environmental impacts of <br />the project. The final step in the EAW process is for the City Council to determine whether there is a <br />need for an environmental impact statement. The City Council will be voting on that item in the near <br />future. <br /> <br />The applicants are now pursuing approval of their preliminary plat and a PRD overlay which allows them <br />to ask for some flexibility in the design and the technical details of the project that might not meet what <br />would normally be expected as part of a single-family plat. The applicants are primarily asking for <br />private streets and other items related to the design of the roads. Grittman noted those items are within <br />the purview of the City to determine whether that flexibility should be allowed. Grittman stated typically <br />those items would be looked at as a variance, but under the PRD process, it would not be considered a <br />variance. <br /> <br />Grittman noted a significant amount of information has been submitted in connection with the <br />application, and because of the timing, there were some updates and supplementary submissions. Given <br />the volume of material that needs to be gone through in more detail, the recommendation is to table action <br />on this item until the October meeting. <br /> <br />Grittman stated he did highlight some issues that the applicant should provide clarity on, and are as <br />follows: <br /> <br />1. Identify all lot sizes, exempting the areas of the lot perimeter within the existing wetlands. <br /> <br />Item #01 - PC Agenda - 10/20/2014 <br />Approval of Planning Commission Minutes 09/15/2014 <br />[Page 44 of 59]