My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
05-08-2017 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
2017
>
05-08-2017 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/24/2019 2:42:35 PM
Creation date
5/24/2019 2:27:18 PM
Metadata
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
488
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
MINUTES OF THE <br />ORONO PLANNING COMM[ISSION MEETING <br />Monday, April 17,2017 <br />6:30 o'clock p.m. <br />Gaffron stated with each interim use permit, an escrow could be established. Gaff-ron indicated he <br />prefer to have incentives to comply included with the approval, such as a larger escrow. <br />Landgraver asked whether a public hearing would be required. <br />Gaffron indicated it would be. Gaffron noted Line 50 in Attachment A outlines the application <br />procedures. <br />Thiesse asked if the City would be obligated to allow a certain use if it is approved at one site. <br />Gaffron stated if a specific use meets all the conditions we want to establish for that site, there would be <br />no reason not to approve it, but the Council has the ability to place whatever conditions it wants on it. <br />Landgraver commented that would allow some flexibility. Landgraver asked how the ordinance language <br />in part B relates to the text in part A. <br />Gaffron indicated B adds a section to the RR- I B District entitled Interim Uses, and lists one allowable <br />interim use that can be applied for. <br />Leskinen stated A would be the general interim use permit standards, B would be where it is allowed and <br />what it is, and C (the application for the Eisinger site) would be to establish the specific conditions. <br />Gaffron stated once the Planning Commission completes its review of A and B, Section C would need to <br />come back for review of the specific language for the specific site. <br />Thiesse noted the Planning Commission is only dealing with A and B tonight. <br />Thiesse. stated he has concerns with allowing temporary construction facilities in the RR -113 District and <br />that in his view it should be located adjacent to the construction project and materials from that project <br />only. <br />Lemke suggested the Planning Commission take each section at a time. <br />Page 19 of 72 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.