Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br />ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br />Monday, August 19 2013 <br />6:30 o’clock p.m. <br />_____________________________________________________________________________________ <br />  <br />Page 19 of 28  <br />  <br /> <br />Gaffron stated to his knowledge they do not and that the only recent subdivision was done a number of <br />years ago and the ordinance was not in effect. <br /> <br />Landgraver noted a higher standard would be applied to this property than the other properties in the area. <br /> <br />Landgraver commented this is a public process and the neighbors have expressed some concerns, but that <br />some of them are construction related and behavioral in terms of the current developments that are not <br />completed which are unrelated to this application. Landgraver stated the concerns that are within the <br />purview of the Planning Commission are the concerns regarding the location of the driveway, the length <br />of the driveway, and the ability for emergency vehicles to access the property. Landgraver asked whether <br />this driveway would require the loop at the end. <br /> <br />Gaffron indicated the proposed driveway is approximately 500 feet long and does not meet the 600’ <br />threshold. <br /> <br />Landgraver stated the Planning Commission does acknowledge the concerns that were raised by the <br />neighbors but that the Planning Commission is limited in what it can do as it relates to some of them. <br />Landgraver asked if there are any concerns regarding the slope of the driveway and possible runoff. <br /> <br />Gaffron indicated a grading plan has not been submitted and would not come into play until the time they <br />construct the house. Gaffron stated in his view the area will be cut and filled to keep the slope of the <br />driveway at less than 10 percent. The City Engineer was specifically asked whether there will be a <br />requirement for stormwater ponding or a rain garden to deal with the runoff, and it was noted that the <br />Watershed District likely will not require that. Gaffron noted the housing plans and grading plans have <br />not been finalized at this point. <br /> <br />Schoenzeit pointed out the Planning Commission will likely not see either one of these properties again <br />since they are not requesting any variances. Schoenzeit commented now is the time for the Planning <br />Commission to address any concerns they may have. <br /> <br />Lemke stated the Planning Commission is basically deciding whether these two properties are dividable. <br /> <br />Landgraver noted there are nine items that Staff would like submitted by the applicant. <br /> <br />Gaffron indicated that is correct and that the Planning Commission may want to see the report generated <br />from the Conservation Design analysis. <br />Landgraver asked if this application is approved, in terms of how the items are being marketed or whether <br />other projects are being completed timely, whether that is something that can be addressed at the City <br />Council. <br /> <br />Gaffron stated the City Council always has the ability to add conditions that the Planning Commission did <br />not add and that the City Council will approve a preliminary plat resolution and then a final plat <br />resolution. <br /> <br />Thiesse noted the last project done by this developer was a multi property development and this is a single <br />house. Thiesse commented it sometimes takes time to sell a property and that the developer is simply <br />moving down the line on another property. <br />Item #01 - PC Agenda - 09/16/2013 <br />Approval of Planning Commission Minutes 08/19/2013 [Page 19 of 28]