My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
03-25-1996 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
1996
>
03-25-1996 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/31/2023 4:15:25 PM
Creation date
8/31/2023 4:10:51 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.
/
265
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
MINIJTHS OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION <br />MEETING HELD ON FEBRUARY 20, 1996 <br />(Ml - #2017 Jolin O'Sullivan - Continued) <br />Hawn said she would need to hear from Hennepin County and be sat'sfied with the <br />resolution of their concerns <br />Mabusth noted that the City Engineer’s comments have not yet been received and asked if <br />the Planning Commission could act on this application without bis comments. <br />Mayor Callahan reminded the Commission of the 60-day rule for action. Mabusth noted <br />that the applicant w ould need to agree to tabling of application in writing. <br />O’Sullivan said he was surprised that it has taken so long tor Hennepin County to respond <br />but asked that the application not be tabled but be continued with conditions placed on the <br />approval He said he had assumed that Cook would have submitted a tollow up on their <br />meeting. <br />Hawn said she could not make a recommendation without addressment of the issues <br />Smith was informed that no County representative w.*s present at the meeting the <br />applicant had with Cook. Zetterstrom was said to have been in attendance at an earlier <br />meeting in Noven.ber with City Staff where normal concerns were vc -ced. The concerns <br />were similar to those voiced with his application 9 years ago tor the other station <br />according to O'Sullivan He cited examples of issues from the last application along with <br />the end results and asked for reconsideration of the vote. Hawn said she would need to be <br />satisified with the concerns <br />Thompson opined that it would not be fair to have a negative vote because some details <br />were not worked out O'Sullivan said he would work with the C ity to address all the <br />issues on the final plan. He said it was Cook’s opinion that there would be improved <br />safety at the intersection, the internal flo'.v presented no problem, and a directional flow <br />arch could poss-My be used ! the car wash. <br />Vote Ayes 2, Schroeder, Lindquist; Nays 2, Hawn, Smith. Motion denied. <br />Schu^eder said the safety concerns would need to be sati.sitied if the applic-fion came back <br />before the Planning Commission He noted that the discussion on the application would <br />be in the minute .>f the meeting and passed on to the Council for their review
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.