My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
07-16-2001 Planning Packet
Orono
>
Planning Commission
>
2001
>
07-16-2001 Planning Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/22/2023 2:25:59 PM
Creation date
2/22/2023 2:24:49 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.
/
221
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 MEETING <br />Monday, Jaac I g. 2001____________ <br />(Baywiad ChrisUaa Church, Coatinacd) <br />Wells staled it ippcors the Planning Commission is attempting to require standards of the church that <br />are not being required of other places within the City . <br />Klulh staled the Planning Commission and City Council adopt standards in an cfTorl to help preserse <br />the community and best sers e the interests of the community. Kluth stated the Planning Commission <br />is not required to follow bad precedents and that the Planning Commission is unable to stop <br />pedestrian trafTic at all other places. Kluth staled just because other churches may have been allowed <br />to have pedestrian traffic across busy streets, docs not require the Planning Commission to allow that <br />to occur at this location. <br />Smith inquired wny the City is considering setting these types of standards for this particular cliurch <br />and other churches in the area when they are not requiring schools and other institutions like the <br />Freshwater Institute to do exactly what the Planning Commission is attempting to do in this particular <br />case. <br />Kluth stated if the City is going to require standards for this church that ore not required of other <br />businesses, it will be subject to judicial review, and the City w ill need to defend why they are creating <br />these standards for this particular church when they ore not being placed against other businesses. <br />Smith slated in her view these standards may need to be a B-4 standard rather than just standards that <br />apply to this particular church. <br />Mabusth .staled a solution iniglil be if sufl'icicnt parking is not provided on site, that the Council must <br />approve a parking plan. Mabusth stated the City in the past has approved parking lots across County- <br />Road 19 for other places of businesses. Mabusth staled in her view the Council should approve a <br />parking arrangement if ample parking is not provided on site. Mabusth inquired how many parking <br />stalls ore available at this site. <br />Kluth staled there is approximately 45 parking stalls. <br />Mabusth suggested that standard number two be made subject to approval by the Council of an ofT- <br />site parking plan if ample parking is not available on-site. <br />Kluth stated in his opinion the Plan: ng Commission should not be coming up with new standards for <br />churches ••hen they arc not being ap(..icd to other businesses within the B-4 District Klulh staled the <br />B-4 District already has standards that need to be complied with. <br />Hawn suird the U-4 District docs have parking standards that will need to be followed. <br />Gaffron stated the City does have specific parking standards for various businesses. <br />Kluth commented he is okay vviih Mabusth's suggestion regarding appro*, ai by the Council oi an off- <br />sile parking plan. <br />PAGE 9
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.