My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
02-18-2014 Planning Commission Packet
Orono
>
Planning Commission
>
2014
>
02-18-2014 Planning Commission Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/21/2018 11:00:40 AM
Creation date
4/6/2015 2:25:21 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
173
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 />Tuesday, January 21, 2014 <br />6:30 o’clock p.m. <br />_____________________________________________________________________________________ <br /> <br />Page 21 of 26 <br /> <br />Landgraver stated he agrees with the spirit of Commissioner Thiesse’s comments and that he does not <br />have the expertise to know if this will work. Landgraver indicated he cannot second guess the Minnehaha <br />Creek Watershed District or the LMCD. <br /> <br />Schoenzeit stated an engineer stamp would address that and that the Planning Commission could restrict <br />use of the fuel tank to boat club use only and that any other use would need to be revisited by the <br />Planning Commission or City Council. Schoenzeit stated due to the City’s obligations to the lake, he <br />would like to see it more fully designed showing that it is viable before the Planning Commission sends a <br />recommendation of approval forward to the City Council. <br /> <br />Schwingler stated there is also the timing issue of getting this done before the boating season. Schwingler <br />noted the LMCD and the Watershed District will also be weighing in on this, and given that, Schwingler <br />indicated he does not have that same concern. <br /> <br />Thiesse asked if the Planning Commission could approve the concept and then require the applicant <br />submit additional information prior to going before the City Council. <br /> <br />Schoenzeit stated in his view the concept is fine but that it requires additional details to determine its <br />viability. Schoenzeit noted this site has had issues with parking in the past and concerns about the lake <br />and that the additional information would help the City Council make a better, more informed decision. <br /> <br />Schwingler stated there are a whole lot of issues with the property, but that it comes down to the <br />practicality of what can be done. Schwingler stated obviously underground storage tanks have been done <br />before and that this is not unexplored territory. Schwingler stated the Planning Commission has to deal <br />with what is in front of them. <br /> <br />Schoenzeit stated if it consumes five parking spots, the question becomes whether the Planning <br />Commission would approve this concept, and the answer is likely no. <br />Schwingler indicated he would agree with that. <br /> <br />Schoenzeit stated a little more documentation would help address that and is a reasonable request. <br /> <br />Lemke asked if the City has determined that there is adequate parking for the number of slips. <br /> <br />Thiesse indicated that is off the table at this point. <br /> <br />Gaffron stated it is part of the previous application that was tabled. Gaffron indicated there has been <br />information supplied but that it has not been fully analyzed at this point and is also subject to revision. <br /> <br />Lemke asked if the elimination of three or four parking stalls would make that big of an impact. <br /> <br />Gaffron stated all those issues are part of the ongoing discussion with the other application and that it has <br />not been fully resolved at this point. <br /> <br />Landgraver stated what he is hearing is that the applicant wants to put an underground storage tank, which <br />will not impact parking in his opinion, but some of the Planning Commissioners would like it verified by <br />an engineer. Landgraver indicated the Planning Commission could approve the concept but require <br />expert verification of its location and any impacts on parking. <br />Item #01 - PC Agenda - * 02/18/2014 <br />Approval of Planning Commission Minutes 01/21/14 <br />[Page 21 of 26]
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.