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 frill 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 />