My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
03-08-2021 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
2021
>
03-08-2021 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/14/2022 10:40:34 AM
Creation date
1/14/2022 10:23:36 AM
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.
/
490
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 COMMISSION <br />Tuesday, February 16, 2021 <br />6:00 o’clock p.m. <br />_____________________________________________________________________________________ <br /> <br />Page 2 of 3 <br /> <br />Gettman asked if they have received any comments from neighbors. <br /> <br />Barnhart said as of today, no, he has not received any comment for or against the proposal. <br /> <br />Gettman noted there would presumably be an increase in the number of trucks and utility vehicles in the <br />area. <br /> <br />Barnhart said perhaps, yes. He imagines a fair number of traffic comes down Old Crystal Bay Road from <br />the current facility, but Gettman is correct, if all of the trucks leave that site there will be more traffic on <br />that section of road. <br /> <br />McCutcheon assumes there is a need for it and asked regarding the purchase, was it because this was <br />relatively close or there were limited choices. <br /> <br />Barnhart does not know the history as to why this site was chosen, but from a planning perspective, the <br />City Engineer suggested a 25% increase in size necessary to accommodate the future public works needs <br />of the community. <br /> <br />McCutcheon clarified the zoning would stay the same except for that one lot. <br /> <br />Barnhart said that is correct, the zoning would not change, nor would the guiding land use change. The <br />only change proposed is to expand the MUSA into that subject property. He showed the MUSA map on <br />screen and pointed out the subject parcel and would add that as an addition to the MUSA map. <br /> <br />Bollis asked if it is possible to do this without expanding the MUSA and doing an on-site system. <br /> <br />Barnhart replied possibly, they could build an on-site septic system and chances are they would need to <br />incorporate some additional land because the land itself is not sized enough to accommodate that service <br />plus the outdoor storage that will be required. He noted they do own a portion of land to the west. <br /> <br />Ressler asked if owning the land to the west could be an opportunity for expansion in the future to avoid a <br />whole new facility. <br /> <br />Barnhart said it could; they did not include it into the MUSA boundary expansion proposal here. While <br />the City does own this and perhaps the City Council could consider some outdoor storage in that area, that <br />area is not included in the MUSA expansion as proposed. <br /> <br />Ressler opened the public hearing at 6:45 p.m. <br /> <br />Ressler closed the public hearing at 6:45 p.m. <br /> <br />Ressler likes the fact that the City already owns the property, it is nice that the adjacent property is owned <br />as that allows for expansion in the future without having to start all over again. The need is there, the <br />City has provided analysis with support and asked if any other Commissioners have comments. <br /> <br />McCutcheon said since it is a rural zoned area, they are always tentative, but as long as the zoning <br />remains and will not be extended - his worry is that the 2040 Comp Plan becomes “oh, we have septic
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.