Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION <br /> Monday,July 20,2020 <br /> 6:00 o'clock p.m. <br /> Libby stated Kirchner and he have a mutual neighbor who is a very large-scale school bus transportation <br /> operator. That individual and Libby had a conversation about the different engineering and practical <br /> aspects of hammerheads vs. circular turnarounds.He said very valid points have been made about <br /> emergency vehicles because when they enter into an emergency situation,they need to be able to get in <br /> and out. The school bus comes daily during the school year. The owners of those vehicles are not fans of <br /> hammerheads because the mechanical stress on the vehicles when having to move through a hammerhead <br /> turnaround to get back out again is very impractical and it costs a lot more to maintain the vehicle than if <br /> it would be using a circular turnaround. He commented it was interesting to hear the operator's opinion on <br /> the wear-and-tear aspect on these large vehicles for hammerheads versus cul-de-sacs. <br /> Ressler said that is why the City would like the ideal standard to be the circular turnaround. <br /> Libby stated he agreed with Bollis from the standpoint of keeping the flexibility and latitude and that <br /> certain developments might have higher needs than others and he would like to keep the language <br /> flexible. <br /> Ressler asked if any members were opposed to adding the circular turnaround language, knowing there <br /> are developments where it may be more appropriate to have something other than a circular turnaround. <br /> Bollis stated he would be opposed because it would force the Applicant to go through a variance process <br /> for something that could otherwise be conforming. <br /> Ressler asked if anyone else was opposed to adding the language. After no response, Ressler said he is for <br /> adding the language because the variance allows the Commission the ability to take a look at the <br /> development in each application and have the ability to end up at the same place but avoid the possibility <br /> of adding a hammerhead where it is not appropriate. <br /> Ressler asked if there was any further discussion on number 4: "Conservation Design. Commissioners <br /> agreed with the proposed changes to the triggers, starting on Line 2091."There was no response from <br /> Commissioners. <br /> Ressler read number 3: "Defer review of the park dedication formula. The Commission agreed that this is <br /> an issue requiring review,but the focus should be on the subdivision process first."He asked Barnhart for <br /> any further comments. <br /> Barnhart said he wants to get the subdivision code approved, knowing the parks formula is an important <br /> part of it. <br /> Ressler asked if the language would be struck. <br /> Barnhart said although the language is not great,it is being kept and they will come back later with an <br /> amendment to the subdivision code that deals with park dedication. <br /> Ressler read number 2: "Does the Council wish to define appropriate street tree types?The Commission <br /> removed ash and gingko from the list of permissible street trees, but also added a reference to an outside <br /> agency for additional options. The Commission suggested the DNR as the resource, because information <br /> from the University of Minnesota Extension was more readily found, staff proposes using that resource." <br /> Page 18 of 19 <br />