03-18-2002 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, February 19,2002 6:30 o’clock p.m. (#02*2755 Long Lake Fire Station, Continued) Hawn stated she would like to have the Planning Commission vote on each of the three issues before them tonight separately, and then discuss the use of this building or any other matter that may ansc and make the appropriate recommendations to the Council. Hawn inquired whether any members of the Planning Commission had any issues with the setback, Kluth stated the City of Orono has the responsibility to insure that there is a correct mitigation plan in place for those wetlands. Mabusth inquired whether there is any benefit to make Lot 2 an outlot. Gaffron stated it would be city-owned property, noting Lot 2 is considered a buildabic lot. Gaffron stated if it is made an outlot, there would need be conditions put on its uses. Gaffron stated he is unsure whether there is any benefit that would be derived by makip-^ it an outlot. Hawn suggested separate motions be made on each of the three items for consideration. Smith moved, Kluth seconded, to recommend approval of the two-lot plat subject to MCWD wetland mitigation and stormwater management plan approval, subject to the Orono City Council determining whether any impact fees such as park dedication/fees and stormwater trunk fees are applicable. VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0. Kluth moved, Hawn seconded, to recommend approval of the side street setback to allow a 40* side street setback where 50* would normally be required based on the hardships outlined in the February 15,2002 Staff Report, w ith the condition that if the sixth bay is not constructed, the variance will not be used for any other purpose. Gaffron inquired what would happen if they decide to expand in the future, noting the vanance is only good for one year. Kluth stated they could ask for a renewal. Kluth noted they currently only have four bays. Kluth stated the motion restricts what the variance can be used for. Jabbour commented the building committee looked at numerous ways to avoid the need for a variance for a sixth bay but were unsuccessful. VOTE ON THE ABOVE MOTION: Ayes 6, Nays 0. Rahn inquired whether the sixth bay or the hose tower was of higher priority. Jabbour stated the sixth bay was their first priority, with the hose tower being their second prionty. Hawn stated she has not heard a ca.se for why the tow er should be five feet higher than the 30 ’ residential limit. PAGE 18