Laserfiche WebLink
• <br />MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION <br />MEETING HELD ON FEBRUARY 20, 1996 <br />( #1 - #2017 John O'Sullivan -Continued) <br />Hawn said she would need to hear from Hennepin County and be satisfied with the <br />resolution of their concerns. <br />Mabusth noted that the City Engineer's comments have not yet been received and asked if <br />the Planning Commission could act on this application without his comments. <br />Mayor Callahan reminded the Commission of the 60 -day rule for action. Mabusth noted <br />that the applicant would need to agree to tabling of application in writing. <br />O'Sullivan said he was surprised that it has taken so long for Hennepin County to respond <br />but asked that the application not be tabled but be continued with conditions placed on the <br />approval. He said he had assumed that Cook would have submitted a follow up on their <br />meeting. <br />Hawn said she could not make a recommendation without addressment of the issues. <br />Smith was informed that no County representative was present at the meeting the <br />applicant had with Cook. Zetterstrom was said to have been in attendance at an earlier <br />meeting in November with City Staff where normal concerns were voiced. The concerns <br />. were similar to those voiced with his application 9 years ago for the other station <br />according to O'Sullivan. He cited examples of issues from the last application along with <br />the end results and asked for reconsideration of the vote. Hawn said she would need to be <br />• <br />satisified with the concerns. <br />Thompson opined that it would not be fair to have a negative vote because some details <br />were not worked out. O'Sullivan said he would work with the City to address all the <br />issues on the final plan. He said it was Cook's opinion that there would be improved <br />safety at the intersection, the internal flow presented no problem, and a directional flow <br />arch could possibly be used for the car wash. <br />Vote: Ayes 2, Schroeder, Lindquist; Nays 2, Hawn, Smith. Motion denied. <br />Schroeder said the safety concerns would need to be satisified if the application came back <br />before the Planning Commission. He noted that the discussion on the application would <br />be in the minutes of the meeting and passed on to the Council for their review. <br />W, <br />