06-15-2020 Planning Commission Minutes

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday,June 15,2020 6:00 o'clock p.m. Ressler commented that he remembers that application and being in support of it, but the reason why he was in support was because the code seemed to demonstrate for a larger development than what the Applicant's subdivision was. He thinks the difficulty is getting this into a box when there are so many variables that can contribute to it. The Planning Commission usually entertains applications as to what does not fit in the box. In particular,the way it is proposed is the safe approach,which is circular,but if the application is for the alternative,then it would come in front of the Planning Commission, if he was not mistaken. He noted he was not giving a position; he was clarifying how it works out in regards to how it is written. Barnhart stated there are standards in the section where it outlines the minimum width and the minimum paved width for roads based on the number of units it serves.Any Applicant or subdivider coming forward could ask for waivers or flexibility from that,just like they do for lot width standards, because if the lot width lined up within a wetland,the lot width measurement is pushed farther back and then it meets the requirement. He noted they did that for the YMCA property a month ago, where the lot width didn't meet the strict reading of the requirement. The Planning Commission felt comfortable granting flexibility for that type of situation because it was on the cul-de-sac road. Applicants can ask for waivers or flexibility for any of the standards, and the Planning Commission can judge them as the recommending body.Now there is a better definition of what the expectation is from the Council. Historically,at least recently,there have been circular cul-de-sacs. He reiterated the Planning Commission can still support waivers if a project comes forward that can be justified. Bollis said that the definition is being narrowed. Barnhart agreed and said the expectation is being better defined based on more recent activity from the Council. Bollis asked if Barnhart was expecting approval tonight. Ressler noted it was guidance, if he was not mistaken. Barnhart stated it was the first reading and he is asking for approval, but if the Commissioners were uncomfortable and would like another month to review it,there is no rush. It could be put on the next meeting and reviewed again. Erickson referenced Line 1618,which talks about trees, and said he is fully prepared to argue both sides of the coin. He thinks the question is well-raised as far as if the Council feels it may be needless, unnecessary, and so on. His other point is that if the Council should decide they want to continue regulating trees,he has a couple of suggestions as to how to do it better than what has been presented.The paragraph beginning with Line 1618 discusses shade trees,which the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) uses the term"deciduous,"and also,they specify being planted within five feet of the right-of- way.He has a concern about that,because subdivisions typically have drainage and utility easements in the first five feet, and he asked if trees should be planted on top of that if there are underground telephone and electric lines. He suggested going out as far as 15 feet from the right-of-way and then they can put in a big tree spade and will not hit any wires. Also, starting on Line 1623,there is a fairly short list of allowable trees which could be longer. He suggested, instead of a limited number of trees, it could say, "Oak, honey locust,maples, hackberry, birch,hickory, or other deciduous trees recommended by the DNR for Central Minnesota."He said the DNR has recommended trees in different parts of the state Page 14 of 19