My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
06-18-2001 Planning Packet
Orono
>
Agendas, Minutes & Packets
>
Planning Commission
>
Packets
>
2000-2009
>
2001
>
06-18-2001 Planning Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/22/2023 2:25:32 PM
Creation date
2/22/2023 2:24:37 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
172
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).
View images
View plain text
s <br />Planning Commissioner Comments <br />Jan Berg: <br />- Concern about potential for expansion within and outside of site... <br />• Parking is a primar>- safety issue - any expectation that a use will require its users to walk across <br />a County Road, especially where then: is no controlled intersection, is not good... <br />- Doesn ’t want adjacent B-4 properties to become parking lots for the church use... <br />• Would prefer that the highly underutilized area zoned IM be used for townhomes. which would <br />be more compatible with existing adjacent single-family residential development... <br />Dan Kluth: <br />• Keels that PC’s consensus at May meeting w ould have been to table if quorum had remained, to <br />give PC and stafl’a chance to further explore the potential impacts of a church use in B-4; i.e. <br />compare the standards for churches in R- Districts w ith those of the B-4 <br />- Also concerned about safety and the future impacts on the B-4 District if churches arc allowed. <br />Bill Stoddard: <br />- B-4 is intended primarily for OtTice/Professional uses that operate 9-5 weekdays and arc shut down <br />on evenings and weekends, and as such is a good fit adjacent to residcmtial zones. The church use <br />is just the opposite, operating on evenings and weekends, perhaps some of the other conditional uses <br />allowed in the B-4 District don't make sense except in a setting where there is much more land <br />available. <br />• Parking is an issue of concern, along w ith the potential for expansion to adjoining properties... <br />- Should the City allow tax-exempt entities in the high-value B-4 district? Would it be better to <br />expect that churches inhabit lower-value residential real estate that will not have such a tax loss <br />impact? <br />Jeantte .Mabusih; <br />- The Church use is inconsistent with the B-4 district <br />- 1 he performance standards of B-4 do not match the requirements we place on churches in <br />residential zones <br />- This is one more e.xample of the City being asked to respond to individual requests to tweak the <br />Navarre area zoning without hav ing completed a comprehensive land use study of the area... <br />- .Adding churches to B-4 probably should be the subjc*ct of a Comprehensive Plan Amendment; it <br />could be construed that the request is simply a method of gaining a zoning v ariance, which is not <br />allowed... <br />- Considering the nature and and location of our B-4 District, allowing a church use there has the <br />poiciuial to deter the comprehensive future development of the B-4... <br />Sandra Smith: <br />Liz Hawn: <br />Dole Lindquist: <br />(No comments received as of press time)
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.