Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br />ORONO CITY PLANNING COMMISSION <br />Monday, October 21, 2013 <br />6:30 o’clock p.m. <br />_____________________________________________________________________________________ <br />  <br />Page 37 of 42  <br />  <br />Thiesse stated he likes the plan that has been presented, but until he knows that it cannot be left as open <br />space, he would like to table the application. Thiesse noted the residents had less than a week after they <br />knew what was being proposed and that there are a few questions that perhaps can be answered in the <br />next month and then the application would be back on track. <br /> <br />McGrann stated he agrees with the comments of Commissioner Thiesse and that it is difficult to turn <br />around once you start going down a certain path. McGrann stated in his view 30 days will not make that <br />much of a difference and there might be more of a consensus once those answers are obtained. <br /> <br />Schoenzeit asked if they are suggesting tabling it for 30 days with a Planning Commission <br />recommendation to City Staff to formally make sure that Three Rivers Park District and Hennepin County <br />know this land is available. <br /> <br />Leskinen questioned whether that would be within the Planning Commission’s jurisdiction. <br /> <br />Lemke stated if Hennepin County is not aware of it, there is something wrong. <br /> <br />Leskinen stated she is not sure whether it is the City’s place to notify other people that a certain piece of <br />land is for sale. <br /> <br />Schoenzeit stated it is very clear that the property owners have rights and that they should get their <br />Comprehensive Plan amendment so they can properly market their property. At the same time, the <br />residents have asked that the application be tabled. Schoenzeit stated the question is whether the Planning <br />Commission should table this application for 30 days. <br /> <br />Lemke stated in his view the owners of the property have probably already looked at other alternatives <br />and that another 30 days will help. Lemke stated he does not want to simply kick it down the road and <br />kick it down the road. <br /> <br />Landgraver stated it sounds like there is either a motion to table for 30 days or a motion to approve, which <br />the dissenters can vote against. <br /> <br />Schoenzeit stated in his view there is not any dissent on the property rights but the question is whether the <br />Planning Commission can make a recommendation that someone spend a little time thinking about open <br />space. <br /> <br />Thiesse stated he is very much in favor of property rights, but the only reason this property was guided in <br />the Comprehensive Plan as open space is that it was probably guided that way right from the beginning. <br /> <br />Gaffron stated that is probably the case. Gaffron indicated the last two Comprehensive Plan reviews were <br />probably more definitive than the 1980 plan based on statutory changes. The 1980 plan was probably <br />more of a land use plan that showed what was existing and the last two Comprehensive Plans have had to <br />show what the City’s plans are for the future, so it holds more weight than in 1980. <br /> <br />Leskinen stated she is in favor of moving it forward and that there are still a number of things that have to <br />be done before the development can be approved. <br /> <br />Item #01 - PC Agenda - 11/18/2013 <br />Approval of Planning Commission Minutes 10/21/2013 <br />[Page 37 of 42]