My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
05-15-2017 Planning Commission Packet
Orono
>
Agendas, Minutes & Packets
>
Planning Commission
>
Packets
>
2010-2019
>
2017
>
05-15-2017 Planning Commission Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/6/2018 2:22:29 PM
Creation date
2/6/2018 2:21:34 PM
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.
/
248
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).
View images
View plain text
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br /> Monday,April 17,2017 <br /> 6:30 o'clock p.m. <br /> Gaffron stated with each interim use permit, an escrow could be established. Gaffron indicated he would <br /> prefer to have incentives to comply included with the approval,such as a larger escrow. <br /> Landgraver asked whether a public hearing would be required. <br /> Gaffron indicated it would be. Gaffron noted Line 50 in Attachment A outlines the application <br /> procedures. <br /> Thiesse asked if the City would be obligated to allow a certain use if it is approved at one site. <br /> Gaffron stated if a specific use meets all the conditions we want to establish for that site,there would be <br /> no reason not to approve it,but the Council has the ability to place whatever conditions it wants on it. <br /> Landgraver commented that would allow some flexibility. Landgraver asked how the ordinance language <br /> in part B relates to the text in part A. <br /> Gaffron indicated B adds a section to the RR-1B District entitled Interim Uses,and lists one allowable <br /> interim use that can be applied for. <br /> Leskinen stated A would be the general interim use permit standards,B would be where it is allowed and <br /> what it is,and C(the application for the Eisinger site)would be to establish the specific conditions. <br /> Gaffron stated once the Planning Commission completes its review of A and B, Section C would need to <br /> come back for review of the specific language for the specific site. <br /> Thiesse noted the Planning Commission is only dealing with A and B tonight. <br /> Thiesse stated he has concerns with allowing temporary construction facilities in the RR-1B District and <br /> that in his view it should be located adjacent to the construction project and materials from that project <br /> only. <br /> Lemke suggested the Planning Commission take each section at a time. <br /> Page 19 of 72 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.