07-26-1999 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

•. • • « ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MOhTOAY, JUNE 21,1999 J • • 9 ' • •• * (>=2492 RICK AND GAIL LUZAICH, CONr.MUED) • . ’ • • . . providing a view of the lake. Luzalch staled that the amount of trees recommended by the City’s forester to be planted are excessive and that the trees will need to be trimmed to .provide a view of , the lake. Luzalch remarked that he would also like to‘plant yegelallon along slope rather than, letv/eedsgrow. ■ " • ’ ’ •• • ' • • • Smith stated that the forester Is recommending natural vegetation on the slope and that some reconciliation of the two plans needs to be aco. mpllshed. Mueller staled that the revised plan was submitted shortly after the last Planning Commission meeting and attempts were made to follow the directions of the Planning C.ommlsslon as far as replanting of the trees, noting that the trees and shrubs that were selected are Intended to blend In and look like they belong ale ng the lakeshore, which was one of the objecUves that the Planning Commission had stated at the last meeting. ; • • • ' • • eller stated that the property owner should have the righUo have a view cf iho lake, noting ^at- forester's plan does not allow that view and would create more of a wall of vegetation. • •^ • Mueller remarked that he made numerous attempts to contact Paul Welnbergerln an effort to obtain the name of the Ci^s forester and was not able to reach him until June 7th. Mueller «aied he was not able to contact the forester until June 11th and was Informed that he just received me * information regarding this application the other day. During the conversation with the forester n^s apparent that the forester was not provided with the revised landscape plan by the Applicant The forester's plan was not received until the 14lh, which dldaot allow time for the Applicant to.meel.. . with the forester and to develop a revised plan based upon his recomrriendatlon?. ’. J •• • ••• •••• • •••**■• • • • Mueller remarked that there are discrepancies In the number of trees and the size of the trew that were purportedly removed, and that these Issues will need to be worked out before anomer plan Is revised. Mueller commented that the Applicant's landscape plan was designed .to meet the spirit of what the Planning Commission had recommended at the last meeting. • Stoddard commented that the Planning Commission wanted the Applicant's landscape architect to meet with the City’s forester In order to develop a plan that would be agreeable to all partiw ana Is In compliance with the CIt/s Comprehensive Plan. Stoddard stated he would like Mueller to meet with the Cit/s foi ester In order to address some of these Issues. Hawn staled that there are some deficiencies In the Applicant's landscape plan which need to be addressed, and suggested that Mueller meet with the City’s forester to discuss these Issues. .Hawn noted that the Comprehensive Plan calls for restoration of the canppy that was removed. * • * . • • * • • Llndqul^ staled that It was clear at the lak Planning Commission meeting thci the City was looking for restoration of this area, which Is 5.*’Jl the City’s goal for this property. Luzalch remarked that In his opinion this landscape plan does meet that objective. Reznlck staled that the revised landscape plan does Include vegetation and trees that are . Indigenous to the area as was specified by the Planning Commission at the pnor fneeimg. HeznjcK. Inquired where the term reforesta'Jon Is used In the Code, and What Is the City's authority to. require restoration. ' • Hawn staled that the City’s goal Is to re-establish what was removed, which Is sqmeUiIng that the • • PageE