Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br /> Monday, August 18, 2003 <br /> 6:00 o'clock p.m. <br /> (#14 #03-2937 BOB MORLOCK, Continued) <br /> Waataja agreed, stating that, while the City Engineer was not specific, they could see the <br /> need for a 20' minimum buffer. <br /> Wells asked what sort of impact this might have on a potential homeowner who might like <br /> to build a walkout residence. <br /> Gaffron asked if the applicant had spoken to MCWD about any concerns they might have. <br /> He mentioned that, in January, the City adopted a new stormwater management plan which <br /> encourages the City to look for ways to manage water runoff that doesn't impact owners <br /> adversely. Gaffron believed that the engineer had this in mind when suggesting a <br /> vegetative type of buffer to direct water. <br /> While the Planning Commission did not need to be party to this discussion, Hawn <br /> interjected that they could recommend approval of the application subject to conversations <br /> held between the applicant and the engineer, as well as, the requirement for Hennepin <br /> County's recommendation regarding the additional curb cut. <br /> Chair Smith moved,Hawn seconded, to recommend approval of Application #03- <br /> 2937,Bob Morlock, 980 North Shore Drive, granting preliminary plat approval for a <br /> 2-lot subdivision subject to staff recommendations, conversations with the City <br /> Engineer, and Hennepin County recommendations. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. <br /> PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS <br /> (#15) REPORT OF PLANNING COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVES <br /> ATTENDING COUNCIL MEETINGS OF JULY 28 AND AUGUST 11, 2003 <br /> Gaffron reported that the Council supported many of the Planning Commission <br /> recommendations; however, the Commission may need to review the Zoscke application <br /> heard in February. He explained that the applicants have been directed to make removals <br /> via the resolution that were not discussed in the Planning Commission meeting. After <br /> reviewing the Minutes and tapes from that meeting, Gaffron indicated that it was difficult <br /> to come to a conclusion as to what was to be removed. <br /> Hawn suggested Gaffron inform the applicants that they can file an appeal to the resolution <br /> and be heard by the Commission once again. <br /> Gaffron pointed out how important it is for the Commission to be as specific as possible <br /> about how much and where removals need to occur when considering applications. He <br /> indicated that he would encourage the applicants to go through the appeal process. <br /> PAGE 29 of 30 <br />