Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br /> Monday,April 17,2017 <br /> 6:30 o'clock p.m. <br /> Gaffron indicated it would be. Gaffron noted Line 50 in Attachment A outlines the application <br /> procedures. <br /> Thiesse asked if the City would be obligated to allow a certain use if it is approved at one site. <br /> Gaffron stated if a specific use meets all the conditions we want to establish for that site, there would be <br /> no reason not to approve it, but the Council has the ability to place whatever conditions it wants on it. <br /> Landgraver commented that would allow some flexibility. Landgraver asked how the ordinance language <br /> in part B relates to the text in part A. <br /> Gaffron indicated B adds a section to the RR-1B District entitled Interim Uses, and lists one allowable <br /> interim use that can be applied for. <br /> Leskinen stated A would be the general interim use permit standards, B would be where it is allowed and <br /> what it is, and C(the application for the Eisinger site)would be to establish the specific conditions. <br /> Gaffron stated once the Planning Commission completes its review of A and B, Section C would need to <br /> come back for review of the specific language for the specific site. <br /> Thiesse noted the Planning Commission is only dealing with A and B tonight. <br /> Thiesse stated he has concerns with allowing temporary construction facilities in the RR-1B District and <br /> that in his view it should be located adjacent to the construction project and materials from that project <br /> only. <br /> Lemke suggested the Planning Commission take each section at a time. <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 /> Page 13 of 48 <br />