My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
07-15-2002 Planning Commission Minutes
Orono
>
Planning Commission
>
2002
>
07-15-2002 Planning Commission Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/27/2012 2:35:07 PM
Creation date
2/27/2012 2:35:07 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
37
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
, <br /> MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br /> Monday,July 15,2002 <br /> 6:30 o'clock p.m. <br /> (#02-2776 HENNEPIN COUNTY, Continued) <br /> Smith pointed out that in 2000 the Planning Commission did not recommend approval; however <br /> the City Council approved the Resolution for Hennepin County. <br /> Mabusth asked what the concerns of the Commission were. <br /> Smith indicated that it was an oversized structure, which the Commission feared could spur the <br /> expansion of the operation at that site. <br /> Hawn added that there was concern with regard to this being the right spot for a facility of this <br /> nature. Located near the Lake and wetland, the proximity issue was raised with regard to the salt <br /> and sand near these precious natural resources. <br /> Mabusth inquired about the proposed retention pond being constructed to mitigate and filter the <br /> runoff before it meets the wetland or lake. <br /> Weinberger stated that the retention pond is being designed to treat the entire site,plus the <br /> chiropractic clinic next door. <br /> Philip maintained that the new building will be taking the place of the existing structure and it is <br /> less likely any leaching will occur. <br /> Mabusth voiced her support for the renewal of the original site plan and asked if this impacts the <br /> additional storage requirements of the facility. <br /> Weinberger noted that the storage will be moved to the opposite side. <br /> Philip pointed out that some retaining walls may still fall within the 250' setback. <br /> Rahn questioned altogether the rationale for approving a nonconforming use. They have <br /> proposed new footage, an expansion of a nonconforming use, which is in contradiction to all <br /> Commission findings. <br /> Weinberger stated that based on the City Council Findings of Fact, the proposed building will <br /> actually have less impact on the surrounding residential properties because the number of salt and <br /> sand deliveries to the site would be reduced by approximately 60 trips annually. With the <br /> enclosed building, the County can stockpile the mix and accept deliveries during daytime hours. <br /> Rahn asked if this could lead to expanded service sites. <br /> PAGE 6 of 36 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.