My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
11-15-1993 Planning PacketC
Orono
>
Planning Commission
>
1993
>
11-15-1993 Planning PacketC
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
11/2/2023 11:38:10 AM
Creation date
11/2/2023 11:31:55 AM
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.
/
326
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 SPECIAL ORONO PLANNING COM^USSION <br />MEETING HELD OCTOBER 21, 1993 <br />Peterson questioned whether the City needed until May 1995 to upgrade its storm water <br />ordinances, and indicated that he would hope they could be completed sooner. Gaffron noted <br />that most cities had been allowed six to eight months by Met Council for implementing their <br />"Interim Strategy", and Orono’s May 1995 deadline was apparently somewhat of a compromise <br />on Met Council’s part. <br />It w’as moved by Janice Berg, seconded by Charles Nolan, to recommend adoption of the <br />proposed language into Part II. Chapter 3 "General Policies for Natural Resource Management" <br />in the Orono Community Management Plan as proposed. Schroeder indicated this is a public <br />hearing and no members of the public were present to comment. The motion carried on a vote <br />of 5 to 0. <br />(#2) FLAG LOTS - RECOiNLMENDATION TO COUNCIL <br />Schroeder asked whether any Commission members had questions on the proposed <br />recommendation to Council regarding flag lots. Smith questioned as to whether some of the <br />standards should apply to existing lots or existing residences. Schroeder questioned what would <br />be the impact of applying these standards to existing properties. Gaffron indicated that some <br />of the area and setback standards would certainly result m additional variance applications in <br />neighborhoods that "bought into" the existing situation, and therefore the new requirements <br />would probably be a nuisance. Some existing buildings would become nonconforming <br />structures. <br />Schroeder noted that, for instance, ‘‘creening might only be an issue for an existing flag lot in <br />a dense area such as Casco Point, and questioned whether there were complaints of this nature. <br />Gaffron indicated theie are virtually no complaints regarding existing flag lots. Schroeder <br />indicated that there appears to be little need for imposing these recommended requirements on <br />existing properties. <br />Schroeder moved. Smith seconded, to transmit the recommended standards for the creation and <br />use of new flag lots as outlined in the staff memo, as Planning Commission’s recommendation <br />to Council. Motion carried on a vote of 5 to 0. <br />Schroeder reminded the Commission of its scheduled 9:00 a.m. Saturday meeting to view the <br />Coffm and Dickey properties. <br />Motion was made by Smith, seconded by Berg, to adjourn at 8:35 a.m. Motion carried. <br />Charles Schroeder, Chair Person
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.