My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
04-17-2017 Planning Commission Packet
Orono
>
Planning Commission
>
2017
>
04-17-2017 Planning Commission Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/6/2018 10:52:12 AM
Creation date
2/6/2018 10:49:41 AM
Metadata
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
467
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br /> Monday,March 20,2017 <br /> 6:30 o'clock p.m. <br /> Comprehensive Plan technically should be amended to allow interim uses that are not conforming with <br /> the guiding. Gaffron noted there will be some text amendments that potentially will be added to the <br /> Comprehensive Plan during its 2018 update but Staff does not believe that should stop the City's ability <br /> to add interim uses to the zoning code at this time. <br /> The Planning Commission should consider the issues for consideration outlined in Staffs report. If the <br /> Planning Commission feels that interim uses is a tool the City should have in place,a recommendation of <br /> approval would be appropriate. <br /> Gaffron noted with the next application the Planning Commission will be looking at the exact use that is <br /> being proposed by the applicant. <br /> Schoenzeit asked whether the conditions should include language that the interim use or the specific use <br /> requires some type of bond in the event the interim property owner does not clean the lot when they are <br /> finished with the interim use. <br /> Gaffron indicated he does not disagree with that suggestion. <br /> Leskinen noted City had considerable discussion on interim uses a number of years ago and that to her <br /> recollection there were some pitfalls involved with interim uses. Leskinen indicated she cannot <br /> remember what those pitfalls were but that she has always felt it would be a useful tool. <br /> Gaffron stated it might have been in conjunction with the Emily Program or it could be possible that past <br /> City Councils were simply not interested in making that change. A number of cities utilize it as a tool but <br /> it could become a problem if the correct conditions are not placed on the applicant. Gaffron stated in his <br /> view it gives the City excellent control over the duration of the interim use. <br /> Leskinen commented it seems to be more secure than a conditional use permit. <br /> Gaffron noted a conditional use permit is permanent and an interim use permit could be terminated by the <br /> City Council at any point. <br /> Page 11 of 64 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.