Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br /> Tuesday,January 21,2014 <br /> 6:30 o'clock p.m. <br /> Gaffron stated from looking at accessory buildings and other applications not related to this,even if <br /> somebody owns both properties,they still need to meet a 10-foot setback from the lot line. Staff would <br /> like the tank to meet a 10-foot setback or grant a variance unless the two southerly properties are <br /> combined. <br /> Landgraver stated the issue is there might someday be two separate owners and that he would like to see <br /> the lots combined. Landgraver stated his understanding is that 1442 is residential. Landgraver asked if <br /> the eastern portion of it is also residential. <br /> Gaffron stated 1440 is a separate tax parcel that goes from Tanager Lake to Browns Bay and the road is <br /> an easement going through the middle of that property. Gaffron indicated the portion of the property west <br /> of the county road is zoned residential and the portion east of the road is zoned commercial, which results <br /> in one property having two different zones. <br /> Gaffron noted the applicant has not made an application to rezone the properties, but for the last two years <br /> there has been discussion regarding the pros and cons of eventually rezoning those lots. Gaffron <br /> indicated that discussion has not occurred because a rezoning has not been proposed. <br /> Landgraver sated the other part the Planning Commission should clarify is that as the business has <br /> evolved and the use of the property has changed as well as the ownership,the City has arrived at a <br /> scenario where the fueling situation is unsafe and needs to be addressed first as opposed to the concern of <br /> coming up with a master plan. Landgraver stated the City Council has indicated they would like the <br /> situation of the fuel addressed first. Landgraver stated there does need to be an overall plan,but the <br /> Council has said there needs to be a solution to the fuel situation. <br /> Lemke asked why the applicant chose this location for the pump. <br /> Kujawa stated the main reason is that the 20 slips are where the boat club boats are and they would like to <br /> keep the fuel tank in the same area. Kujawa indicated it is also the widest dock, and if they switch to <br /> retail sales, they would be able to flatten out the end of the dock and make a longer area. Kujawa <br /> indicated for future purposes it makes more sense at that location. <br /> Thiesse noted Section 78-1121,No. 5a, states: "The storage or processing of materials that are, in time of <br /> flooding, flammable, explosive or potentially injurious to human, animal, or plant life is prohibited." <br /> Gaffron stated it is floodplain provisional use. <br /> Thiesse asked if this is in a floodplain. <br /> Gaffron indicated it is, and that from his perspective the intent of that section is, if the fuel storage tank <br /> meets all the state and city requirements,that section would not be applicable. <br /> Thiesse stated even if you remove the word processing and just take the storage of materials that are, in <br /> time of flooding, explosive or flammable, gasoline is always flammable or explosive. Thiesse asked if <br /> Staff is taking the position that if it is in the tank and protected, it is not. <br /> Gaffron indicated that is correct, and that the other position that needs to be looked at before issuing the <br /> permit is if the slab has to extend beyond the 931.5, then it is no longer in the floodplain and no longer <br /> Page 19 of 26 <br />