Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br /> Monday,July 21,2014 <br /> 6:30 o'clock p.m. <br /> Leskinen stated if this is primarily a storage space for the associated businesses in the building, it might <br /> not trigger the need for a zoning code amendment. <br /> Lemke noted all of the permitted uses in this district do have a retail function. <br /> Thiesse noted conditional uses do not and that professional offices and offices of a general nature are <br /> considered a conditional use. <br /> Mack stated normally there is a little bit of discretion on the part of the City if something does not fit the <br /> strict confines of the ordinance and that a conditional use permit is one option. Mack stated if the <br /> Planning Commission decides that this does not fit the true character of a warehouse building, it could <br /> perhaps be considered professional offices with storage, which could be addressed under a conditional use <br /> permit rather than a text amendment. <br /> Landgraver stated in his view that would be the most expedient thing to do. Landgraver stated the storage <br /> space would be linked to the office suite and that the space ratio would need to be spelled out. <br /> Schoenzeit stated the conditional use permit could also ban forklifts. <br /> Landgraver stated he does not see any issues with this particular entity but that there could be issues in the <br /> future. Landgraver stated the overall issue of office/warehouse could be discussed in a work session. <br /> Leskinen indicated she would concur this should be discussed at a work session. Leskinen stated for this <br /> particular application, if it is deemed not to be warehouse space but more storage space, the Planning <br /> Commission could perhaps spell out the allowable ratio of storage versus office space in a conditional use <br /> permit rather than a text amendment. <br /> Mack stated in his view Staff would agree with that, and that as part of the conditional use permit, Staff <br /> could write in conditions of approval. Mack stated looking at additional parts of the code is a very worthy <br /> topic for a work session, and that in the short time he has been here it has become pretty clear that there <br /> are some segments of the code that are outdated as well as some confusing language. Mack stated he <br /> would suggest holding a work session for code review sometime this winter. <br /> Thiesse asked if the owner of the building would be allowed to expand the storage if the front businesses <br /> do not make it. <br /> Leskinen stated the ratios would need to be clearly defined in the conditional use permit. <br /> McGrann stated he would have some concerns if the entire front of the building appeared to be warehouse <br /> space. <br /> Mack stated he would recommend that this not be tied to some storage use of the front building areas. <br /> Mack stated as proposed,the storage would constitute only 35 percent of the whole business and that he <br /> would never advocate for anything higher than that. <br /> Leskinen stated the storage area should be tied to one of the uses in the building and that it can never be a <br /> storage space for a business independent of the building. <br /> Page 28 of 30 <br />