Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br />ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br />Monday, May 19, 2014 <br />6:30 o’clock p.m. <br />_____________________________________________________________________________________ <br />  <br />Page 21 of 31  <br />  <br />Leskinen stated the Planning Commission should consider whether rezoning is appropriate and not get <br />caught up in the little details of the other issues. <br /> <br />Landgraver stated the Planning Commission is also being asked to consider a transitional zoning area for <br />the residential properties. <br /> <br />Schoenzeit stated the transitional zoning area would afford additional opportunities for the land and that <br />any future action should incorporate the details such that the zoning or other adjustments to the <br />Comprehensive Plan go hand-in-hand with all the expected improvements. Schoenzeit stated he would <br />recommend that the end game be identified as part of this process. <br /> <br />Lemke asked if this can be handled through a conditional use permit and not rezoning. <br /> <br />Gaffron stated technically it cannot be since there are specific things that are allowed on the residential <br />properties and specific things on the commercial properties. Gaffron stated he does not feel it is possible <br />to create a conditional use permit for these properties and that the Planning Commission is looking at a <br />rezoning. <br /> <br />Schwingler stated if you look at the history of the property, the site is always evolving. Schwingler stated <br />there are consequences to what happens and that those details are critical to a rezoning decision. <br />Schwingler stated the Planning Commission should look at all the components that need to be corrected <br />with the properties and that there are some advantages to the rezoning but that there are also unintended <br />consequences. <br /> <br />Lemke stated he has a concern with the buffer on the north end and pointed out that if six parking stalls <br />were removed, an additional 20 feet could be gained resulting in a 30-foot setback, which would help <br />protect the residential area. <br /> <br />Thiesse stated it is in the applicant’s best interests to have the properties rezoned but that the neighbor to <br />the north purchased residential property next to residential property, which is important. Thiesse stated <br />the plan is good start and that he commends the owners for working with the City over the past four years <br />but that there is a lot of work left to be done. <br /> <br />Leskinen concurred that it is just the beginning of the work, and asked whether the Planning Commission <br />should discuss all aspects of the rezoning request and whether the one residential property should be a <br />transitional property. Leskinen stated in her opinion it is in the best interests to rezone the properties and <br />that she likes the idea of a sub-district but that she would like to make sure the City looks at every part of <br />this. <br /> <br />Leskinen asked if it is practical to leave one property as residential and possibly have a blighted, <br />unoccupied property. <br /> <br />Gaffron stated he is in agreement that there is not enough buffer from the parking lot to the residential <br />property to the north. Gaffron stated whether it makes sense to just rezone 1442 and not 1444 is another <br />question. Gaffron noted there are parking agreements that would need to be redone and that he would <br />rather see both parcels zoned commercial of some sort. Gaffron stated it may make sense to create a sub- <br />district in order to place limitations on those properties. <br /> <br />Item #01 - PC Agenda - 06/16/2014 <br />Aproval of Planning Commission Minutes 05/19/2014 <br />[Page 21 of 31]