Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Orono approves preliminary plat for 2420 Fox Street amid neighbor concerns about tree loss and drainage
Summary
The council adopted resolution 76 62 to approve a two‑lot preliminary plat at 2420 Fox Street despite neighbor objections citing runoff, potential loss of about 177 trees and insufficient developer outreach; staff and the applicant said required stormwater and watershed approvals will be checked at later permitting stages.
The Orono City Council voted to adopt resolution 76 62 approving the preliminary plat for 2420 Fox Street after extended public comment and council discussion about tree removal, stormwater and neighbor outreach.
Sharra Hoffman, who lives at 2400 Fox Street, told council she had retained counsel and asked the council to require the developer to provide stormwater plans and comply with engineering comments before preliminary approval. Hoffman said the northwest corner of her lot abuts the project's pond, that the property already retains water, and that the project’s proposed tree removal and driveway placement would reduce privacy, increase runoff and harm wildlife.
The applicant, Adam Price, owner of 2420 Fox Street, responded that the application met city guidelines and contained stormwater calculations. “We feel we've done everything that you guys asked for,” Price said, adding the project includes a tree‑replacement plan and that he would work to preserve privacy for neighbors.
City staff and the city attorney explained the scope of the preliminary plat decision: subdivision approval establishes lot configuration and does not itself authorize building permits, driveway permits or final stormwater designs. The city attorney told council that detailed stormwater and Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) buffer requirements are verified later when building permits are sought and that a two‑lot split typically does not trigger additional watershed approvals that would come with larger subdivisions.
Council members acknowledged that the application met the code and planning‑commission recommendations, while several members said the public comments revealed a broader policy question about tree‑preservation on non‑shoreline lots. Council Member Benson urged staff to consider whether the city should pursue additional preservation protections in future code changes.
Council Member Ricks, after meeting with staff and touring facilities, raised concerns about the number of trees slated for removal and encouraged the applicant to shift the shared driveway where possible to avoid additional tree loss. The council imposed a condition that the applicant meet the city engineer’s letter before finalizing the preliminary approval.
Council Member Benson moved to adopt resolution 76 62 approving the preliminary plat subject to meeting the engineer’s letter; the motion was seconded and carried by voice vote.
Next steps: the preliminary plat approval allows the project to proceed to final plat and building‑permit stages; stormwater designs and MCWD buffer approvals will be addressed at subsequent permit reviews.
