Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION <br /> Tuesday,January 19,2021 <br /> 6:00 o'clock p.m. <br /> Barnhart said if it is a requirement,yes,the Applicant has to finish those projects. It is not just County, it <br /> is the City Engineer and the watershed district. <br /> Chair Ressler said the County was recommending but not requiring the turn lane. <br /> Barnhart said yes,they are recommending it at this time based on the letter in the packet from August. <br /> Kirchner asked regarding the conservation design and subsequent attachment, Barnhart mentioned the <br /> tree removal and replacement.Kirchner is not familiar with a tree replacement ordinance in Orono and <br /> asked if as part of a plat is there any way to require tree replacement. <br /> Barnhart said they certainly can,as a condition of the plat approval,impart some sort of standards for tree <br /> protection. In the City code there is not a tree protection ordinance per say,there is prohibition against <br /> tree removal in wetlands in the 0-75 or in the bluff. Those areas are protected by ordinance from a <br /> neighborhood character standpoint and the Planning Commission could suggest certain areas be preserved <br /> or replaced. They are not proposing any of that from a Staff level but the Planning Commission could <br /> certainly add that as a comment which would in essence be a recommendation to the City Council. <br /> Kirchner believes Barnhart mentioned replacement specific to where Shoreline Drive would intersect with <br /> the roadway and asked if there is a wetland that would be impacted with tree removal for that roadway. <br /> Barnhart said there is a road between the road and the property line;the neighboring property owners <br /> expressed some concern about the potential impacts to the existing vegetation along the east property line. <br /> There is a tree planting requirement as part of the subdivision that is 1 tree per 40 feet and Staff put in <br /> comments that those trees be more clumped versus linear to be more of a natural aesthetic. If the <br /> Planning Commission wants to go beyond that in terms of concern for an impact,they should make that <br /> comment. <br /> Gettman said he did not see Outlot D on some of the documents and asked if that will be for parking or a <br /> potential dock. <br /> Barnhart replied that is a good comment and good question. Right now, it is on its own and is not tied to <br /> anything in particular;he thinks there was concern from the Planning Commission in the initial review <br /> that there be a parking area, so he recommended that either be tied to Outlot C to make that one bigger as <br /> that is probably the cleanest way and they don't want a remnant out there. <br /> Chair Ressler called the Applicant forward for a presentation. He noted Libby will excuse himself a little <br /> early from the meeting; also because this is an irregular time to meet Staff wants everyone to know at <br /> 6:30 p.m.the alarm is supposed to be set. They think they have mitigated it but if an alarm goes off it <br /> will be turned off. <br /> Patrick Steinhoff,an attorney at Malkerson,Gunn,Martin is representing the Applicant. He also has Tim <br /> Whitten and Mark Gronberg with him this evening. He knows that Planning Commission's do not like to <br /> listen to attorneys and he usually likes to sit in the back and keep his mouth shut. They recall that the <br /> Planning Commission heard about this application in August and they have made some changes to the <br /> plan since then which are largely driven by legal objections so he will explain the changes. In August,the <br /> Applicant had proposed a solution to a potential issue with the ALS as it is a moving target and can be in <br /> one place today and tomorrow someone builds a house and the ALS is somewhere else. To address that, <br /> Page 3 of 28 <br />