Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION <br /> Tuesday,February 19,2002 <br /> 6:30 o'clock p.m. <br /> (#02-2755 Long Lake Fire Station,Continued) <br /> Hawn stated she would like to have the Planning Commission vote on each of the three issues before <br /> them tonight separately, and then discuss the use of this building or any other matter that may arise and <br /> make the appropriate recommendations to the Council. <br /> Hawn inquired whether any members of the Planning Commission had any issues with the setback. <br /> Kluth stated the City of Orono has the responsibility to insure that there is a correct mitigation plan in <br /> place for those wetlands. <br /> Mabusth inquired whether there is any benefit to make Lot 2 an outlot. <br /> Gaffron stated it would be city-owned property,noting Lot 2 is considered a buildable lot. Gaffron <br /> stated if it is made an outlot,there would need be conditions put on its uses. Gaffron stated he is unsure <br /> whether there is any benefit that would be derived by making it an outlot. <br /> Hawn suggested separate motions be made on each of the three items for consideration. <br /> Smith moved,Kluth seconded,to recommend approval of the two-lot plat subject to <br /> MCWD wetland mitigation and stormwater management plan approval,subject to the <br /> Orono City Council determining whether any impact fees such as park dedication/fees and <br /> stormwater trunk fees are applicable. VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0. <br /> Kluth moved,Hawn seconded,to recommend approval of the side street setback to allow a <br /> 40' side street setback where 50'would normally be required based on the hardships outlined in <br /> the February 15, 2002 Staff Report,with the condition that if the sixth bay is not constructed,the <br /> variance will not be used for any other purpose. <br /> Gaffron inquired what would happen if they decide to expand in the future,noting the variance is only <br /> good for one year. <br /> Kluth stated they could ask for a renewal. Kluth noted they currently only have four bays. Kluth stated <br /> the motion restricts what the variance can be used for. <br /> Jabbour commented the building committee looked at numerous ways to avoid the need for a variance <br /> for a sixth bay but were unsuccessful. <br /> VOTE ON THE ABOVE MOTION: Ayes 6,Nays 0. <br /> Rahn inquired whether the sixth bay or the hose tower was of higher priority. <br /> Jabbour stated the sixth bay was their first priority, with the hose tower being their second priority. <br /> Hawn stated she has not heard a case for why the tower should be five feet higher than the 30' <br /> residential limit. <br /> PAGE 18 <br />