Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br />ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br />Monday, July 21, 2014 <br />6:30 o’clock p.m. <br />_____________________________________________________________________________________ <br />  <br />Page 28 of 30  <br />  <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 /> <br />Lemke noted all of the permitted uses in this district do have a retail function. <br /> <br />Thiesse noted conditional uses do not and that professional offices and offices of a general nature are <br />considered a conditional use. <br /> <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 /> <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 /> <br />Schoenzeit stated the conditional use permit could also ban forklifts. <br /> <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 /> <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 /> <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are some segments of the code that are outdated as well as some confusing language.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 /> <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 /> <br />Leskinen stated the ratios would need to be clearly defined in the conditional use permit. <br /> <br />McGrann stated he would have some concerns if the entire front of the building appeared to be warehouse <br />space. <br /> <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 /> <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 /> <br />Item #01 - PC Agenda - 08/18/2014 <br />Approval of Planning Commission Minutes <br />[Page 28 of 30]