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 />MopJay, June 18,2001____________ <br />(Bayi»ind Chrisliao Church, Coptinurd) <br />Hawn suggested the Planning Commission skip standard number three and consider standard number <br />four which requires that parking areas in side or rear yards be set back 25 feet from residenlialty <br />zoned property. <br />Sto<’Jard staled tJie B-4 standard is 30 feet. <br />Gaffron stated the D4 standards allows parking within 10 feet of a rear yard and side yard setback. <br />Lindquist stated in his view the standard should be 10 feel to be in agreement with the B-4 standards. <br />Gaffron indicated the 10 feel setback is in the general parking standards for any U District and not <br />just specifically the D4 District. Gaffron stated the language should perhaps read that parking is <br />allowed in a rear yard in a B District up to within 10 feel of the rear lot line and up to within three feet <br />in a residential district. <br />rkiuth suted if other businesses in the B-4 District are allowed to park w ithin 10 feet of a rear lot line, <br />then why should churches be any different. <br />Lindquist recommended the same D-4 standards apply. <br />Haw n commented it is her vie that Staff feels the 10 feel is not enough for any business. I lawn <br />inquired whether the Planning Commission would be in favor of making that a bigger setback for any <br />use. <br />Gaffron stated in his opinion changing the standards for other uses within the B-4 District is outside <br />the scope of what is happening tonight. Gaffron staled the Planning Commission is looking at a <br />specific use and its impacts in determining whether the standards arc appropriate. <br />Hawn stated the stan 'ards should be consistent. <br />GalTron stated it was not the intent to change the standards for all uses w i:hin the B-4 District but to <br />come up with s<>me standards specific for churches within the B-4 District. <br />Smith staled the Council could consider changing the standards for the entire B-4 District. <br />Kluth reiterated his concern that if the City adopts standards specific to this church and docs not apply <br />them to other uses w ithin the B-4 District, that it may appear the City is attempting to zone this <br />particular use out of this district. <br />Hawn stated it is her sense that the Planning Commission would prefer to leave it at a 10 foot setback, <br />w ith a recommendation to the Council that If they would like more stringent conditions, they consider <br />apply ing them to the entire B-4 District <br />Kluth stated the parking lots currently in this area would then be grandfathered in if new sundards are <br />adopted. <br />PAGE 10
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.