Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION <br /> Tuesday,February 18,2020 <br /> 6:00 p.m. <br /> Erickson noted the Staff recommendations listed on page 3 of the packet were an excellent <br /> recommendation and were well drafted. He stated that this leads him to be totally comfortable with the <br /> application. <br /> Thiesse moved,Libby seconded,to recommend approval of Application No. LA20-000007 Revision <br /> LLC, 1030 Tonkawa Road,Conditional Use Permit. VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0. <br /> 5. LA20-000008 HANS FREES,505 WILLOW DRIVE SOUTH,WETLAND ALTERATION <br /> PERMIT,6:54 P.M.—7:42 P.M. <br /> Hans Frees,Applicant,was present. <br /> Staff presented a summary of packet information. <br /> Bollis asked if there is a current buffer on the wetland. <br /> Oakden asked that the applicant answer that question and noted that if there is it would have been <br /> established by the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District(MCWD)and not the City. She explained that <br /> when there is not an established buffer,the City defaults to a 25-foot setback. She stated that to her <br /> knowledge,the MCWD would require an established buffer. <br /> Thiesse stated that the e-mail received from Mr. Carlson seemed to imply that the Technical Evaluation <br /> Panel(TEP)change some things and asked if the Commission would see this again or if the Commission <br /> would simply vote to accept anything they say. <br /> Oakden stated that it is fairly common that the Commission and the Minnehaha Creek Watershed review <br /> run concurrently. She noted that the TEP has made some comments but it is still being evaluated and <br /> they are asking for a full meeting in order to create comments in time for the Minnehaha Creek Watershed <br /> Board meeting on March 27,2020. <br /> Thiesse asked what impacts this is causing. <br /> Oakden stated that hydrology and ecology of wetland reviews are conducted by the MCWD. <br /> Thiesse stated that he understands that but the Commission is supposed to be discussing mitigation to <br /> impacts,however he is not clear what the impacts are. <br /> Barnhart stated that any impacts that are observed, anticipated,or any that are shared by the public, are <br /> what need to be considered. <br /> Ressler stated that some of the feedback from homeowners has been surrounding a concern about what <br /> the actual impact and usage will be and whether it will be used for recreational purposes. He stated that <br /> whenever a body of water is created it turns into a lake and his understanding is that this application does <br /> not include any additional request for dockage. <br /> Oakden explained that this is correct and the scope of the application is to fall under the wildlife habitat <br /> exemption under the WCA so there is not a proposed dock or recreational type use included in the <br /> application. She stated that the applicant is present and can definitely speak to that question. <br /> Page 8 of 30 <br />