06-21-1999 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

r #2492 Rick & GaU Luzaich June 17,1999 Pages applicant's goals for the property. The City's philosophical goals and policies for its lakeshore are stated in the Comprehensive Plan very clearly on pages 3-18 through 3-23. General Policy 9 on page 3-20 states: "9. LAKE SHORELINES WILL BE PROTECTED FROM ALTERATION. Natural vegetation in shoreland areas will be preserved insofar as practical and reasonable in order to retard surface runoff and soil erosion, and to utilize excess nutrients. Clearcutting will be prohibited. In areas of soil or or wave action erosion, natural stone rip rap shoreline protection will be encouraged." Urban Area Policy 2 on Page 3-22 states: "2. RETENTION OF NATURAL VEGETATION WILL LIMIT THE IMPACT OF URBANIZATION AS VISIBLE FROM THE LAKE. BuUding heights will be limited to less than the typical tree height. Minimum green belts will be provided with prohibitions against clearcutting or excessive thinning of vegetation. Natural vegetation will be preserved on slopes. Retaining walls will be discouraged except when absolutely necessary to prevent erosion,in which case they will be screened with natural vegetation." These policies have been in effect since 1980, and Orono's Shoreland ordinances and tree protection ordinances as noted in the May 10 staff memo have long been in place to implement these policies. Staff' Recommendation : * The applicant's revised plan does not meet the goals set forth in the Comprehensive Plan, and does not come close to matching the recommendations of the City's forestry consultant for restoration of this site. The revised plan should be rejected. Planning Commission should consider the following options: 1. Vote to deny the request for a CUP for retaining walls, and recommend to Council that the applicant be required to submit a restoration plan that substantially meets the recommendations of the City's forestry consultant. Staff would forward the application to Council’s June 28 meeting unless applicant wishes additional time to generate another plan. This action will send the application forward to Council more speedily, potentially getting restoration started sooner, but Planning Commission may lose the chance to review and approve the next plan that is generated. OR 2. Table the request, and provide applicant with additional direction as to what parts of the plan are deficient, and direct that a further revised plan be submitted for Planning Commission review at the July 19 meeting. This action will result in an additional month delay before restoration can begin, but allows Planning Commission to review the next plan that is generated.