09-13-1999 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY, JUNE 21,1999 (#2492 RICK AND GAIL LUZAICH. CONTINUED) providing a view of the lake. Luzalch stated 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. Luzaich remarked that he would also like to plant vegetation along the slope rather than let weeds grow. Smith stated that the forester is recommending natural vegetation on the slope and that some reconciliation of the two plans needs to be accomplished. Mueller stated that the revised plan was submitted shortly after the last Planning Commission meeting and attempts were made to follow the directions of the Planning Commission 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 aiong the lakeshore, which was one of the objectives th'^t the Planning Commission had stated at the last meeting. Mueller stated that the property owner should have the right to have a view of the lake, noting that the 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 Weinberger in an effort to t btain the name of the City's forester and was not able to reach him until June 7th. Mueller stated he was not able to contact the forester until June 11th and was informed that he Just received the information regarding this application the other day. During the conversation with the forester H was apparent that the forester was not provided with the revised landscape plan by the Applicant. The forester's plan was not received until the 14th, which did not allow time for the Applicant to meet wit;-! the forester and to develop a revised plan based upon his recommendations. Mueiler remarked that there are discrepancies in the number of trees and the size of the trees that were purportedly removed, and that these issues will need to be worked out before another 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 parties and is in compliance with the City's Comprehensive Plan. Stoddard stated he would like Mueller to meet with the City's forester in order to address some of these issues. Hawn stated 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 canopy that was removed. Lindquist stated that it was clear at the last Planning Commission meeting that the City was looking for restoration of this area, which is still the City's goal for this property. Luzaich remarked that in his opinion this landscape plan does meet that objective. Reznick stated that the revised landscape plan does include vegetation and trees that are indigenous to the area as was specified by the Pi« ning Commission at the prior meeting. Reznick inquired where the term reforestation is used in the Code, and what is the City's authority to require restoration. Hawn stated that the City's goal is to re-establish what was removed, which is something that the Pages