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 /> Lemke moved,Leskinen seconded,to recommend approval of text amendment per the attachment <br /> A of the work session packet,but revising the wording of Line 102 to add "at a minimum" <br /> requiring annual review. VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0. <br /> Thiesse asked if Staff has any concerns with B. <br /> Gaffron stated the RR-1B District is a fairly substantial residential district. As an interim use,the City is <br /> saying in general this is a district that might allow this,with specific conditions to be established by the <br /> Council,such as a time limit and site layout. Gaffron noted that does not mean the Planning Commission <br /> or City Council is required to approve the use for any property in the RR-1B District. Any proposed use <br /> would have to meet all of the IUP standards contained in A. Gaffron stated if they do not meet those, <br /> even though it is an allowed interim use in the RR-1B district,the City can say no. <br /> Thiesse stated one of his concerns is that the City is jumping forward for a specific project,which is the <br /> Highway 112 project. <br /> Lemke asked if this is the type of thing that would go along with an application. <br /> Thiesse stated in his view the City needs an interim use permit option but that they do not need it right <br /> now. Thiesse commented the City will find out how it works on the MnDOT property and that he is not <br /> sure whether the City has to rush through with this now. <br /> Gaffron stated the applicant has indicated he is looking at future phases should the MnDOT site not work <br /> out. <br /> Thiesse noted Phase II is on the other side of Long Lake and that the materials would need to be hauled <br /> through the city. <br /> Gaffron stated the urgency is not here today as it was a month or two ago. <br /> Landgraver stated since A was approved,an interim use permit can be issued. <br /> Page 20 of 72 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.