Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING <br /> Monday,May 8,2017 <br /> 7:00 a'clock p.m. <br /> 13. #17-3911 LAKE WEST DEVELOPMENT,LLC,3245 WAYZATA BOULEVARD WEST, <br /> ZONING CODE TEXT AMENDMENT—ALLOW INTERIM/TEMPORARY USES—Continued <br /> Printup asked what the process would be if there are violations, such as fill coming from outside the City <br /> and the City is considering ending the use. <br /> Mattick stated the person would be entitled to a public hearing and that Staff could not administratively <br /> revoke or suspend the permit. The Council could revoke the permit following a public hearing if there is <br /> a single violation. The City could also issue a letter to the property owner requesting they stop a certain <br /> activity. <br /> Printup asked if there have been cases in other cities where their interim use permits have been revoked. <br /> Mattick indicated he is not aware of any litigation. Mattick stated in his view I[JPs are underused by <br /> cities. Mattick noted the use is not meant to be there forever and the City has wide latitude on what <br /> conditions it would like to impose. The use is also not grandfathered under an I[TP. <br /> Walsh commented it gives the City a good tool to use that helps residents use their land a little more. <br /> Mattick stated the more common uses are such things as gravel pits or other intensified uses but it can <br /> also be used in redevelopment zones. Mattick stated it gives the City a very flexible tool to use. <br /> Walsh noted it also gives the City the ability to test different uses. <br /> Printup commented it almost sounds too good to be true and that he questions whether the City can deny <br /> the use on one property if it is allowed on another. <br /> Mattick noted the use does not have to be allowed in all residential zones and that certain setbacks could <br /> be required. Mattick noted the area could also be rezoned to eliminate the interim use. <br /> Walsh stated the underlying conditions would help limit where the use can go but that it does provide the <br /> City the ability to allow residents to use their properties in different ways. <br /> Crosby asked whether any of the neighboring cities utilize interim use permits. <br /> Gaffron stated he is not aware of any right now but that Maple Grove has utilized IUPs. <br /> There were no public comments regarding this item. <br /> Gaffron stated the Exhibit A ordinance can probably be adopted as is. As far as Exhibit B,which is the <br /> RR-1B district,there are some question marks on whether they should be included that have been <br /> highlighted by Staff. Gaffron noted under Item 1,there is a question whether the facilities should be <br /> associated with adjacent government-sponsored public road construction. <br /> Page 9 of 34 <br />