Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO CITY PLANNING COMMISSION <br /> Monday,October 21,2013 <br /> 6:30 o'clock p.m. <br /> Thiesse stated he likes the plan that has been presented,but until he knows that it cannot be left as open <br /> space,he would like to table the application. Thiesse noted the residents had less than a week after they <br /> knew what was being proposed and that there are a few questions that perhaps can be answered in the <br /> next month and then the application would be back on track. <br /> McGrann stated he agrees with the comments of Commissioner Thiesse and that it is difficult to turn <br /> around once you start going down a certain path. McGrann stated in his view 30 days will not make that <br /> much of a difference and there might be more of a consensus once those answers are obtained. <br /> Schoenzeit asked if they are suggesting tabling it for 30 days with a Planning Commission <br /> recommendation to City Staff to formally make sure that Three Rivers Park District and Hennepin County <br /> know this land is available. <br /> Leskinen questioned whether that would be within the Planning Commission's jurisdiction. <br /> Lemke stated if Hennepin County is not aware of it,there is something wrong. <br /> Leskinen stated she is not sure whether it is the City's place to notify other people that a certain piece of <br /> land is for sale. <br /> Schoenzeit stated it is very clear that the property owners have rights and that they should get their <br /> Comprehensive Plan amendment so they can properly market their property. At the same time,the <br /> residents have asked that the application be tabled. Schoenzeit stated the question is whether the Planning <br /> Commission should table this application for 30 days. <br /> Lemke stated in his view the owners of the property have probably already looked at other alternatives <br /> and that another 30 days will help. Lemke stated he does not want to simply kick it down the road and <br /> kick it down the road. <br /> Landgraver stated it sounds like there is either a motion to table for 30 days or a motion to approve, which <br /> the dissenters can vote against. <br /> Schoenzeit stated in his view there is not any dissent on the property rights but the question is whether the <br /> Planning Commission can make a recommendation that someone spend a little time thinking about open <br /> space. <br /> Thiesse stated he is very much in favor of property rights,but the only reason this property was guided in <br /> the Comprehensive Plan as open space is that it was probably guided that way right from the beginning. <br /> Gaffron stated that is probably the case. Gaffron indicated the last two Comprehensive Plan reviews were <br /> probably more defmitive than the 1980 plan based on statutory changes. The 1980 plan was probably <br /> more of a land use plan that showed what was existing and the last two Comprehensive Plans have had to <br /> show what the City's plans are for the future, so it holds more weight than in 1980. <br /> Leskinen stated she is in favor of moving it forward and that there are still a number of things that have to <br /> be done before the development can be approved. <br /> Page 37 of 42 <br />