Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br /> Monday,March 20,2017 <br /> 6:30 o'clock p.m. <br /> Chair Thiesse closed the public hearing at 9:54 p.m. <br /> Thiesse noted on Page 2 of 2,it talks about Section 3. Thiesse asked if that is similar to Section 78-144. <br /> Barnhart stated under Section 78-14, starting at Line 82 of the draft ordinance,there are two processes for <br /> site plan review. A site plan review in the existing code is primarily commercial and industrial districts, <br /> such as the Lund's expansion and the Freshwater Business Center. Basically that is a permitted use and <br /> Staff reviews the plan to make sure that the code is being met. <br /> Currently the code says that the planning and zoning district can make a decision on relatively minor <br /> changes to a site plan. If it is a new building,the City Council would need to approve those through a <br /> public hearing process. Barnhart stated that is proposed to be changed in the draft ordinance to allow <br /> Staff to approve a site plan for a permitted use in industrial and commercial properties. Since it is a <br /> permitted use,the Planning Commission or City Council does not have a lot of discretion in approving it <br /> since it basically is already allowed by code. If any part of the code is not met,a variance would be <br /> required. A conditional use permit would also go through the current review process. <br /> Thiesse stated managing expectations is big,but if people do not get a chance to address things,in his <br /> view it is a perception of less transparency. <br /> Barnhart noted the Planning Commission does not review house plans,which is the same thing. An <br /> argument could be made that they impact more residents but the Planning Commission does not review <br /> house plans unless they require a variance. Barnhart stated that is the same process that Staff is proposing <br /> for the commercial and industrial districts. <br /> Landgraver noted starting at Line 140 it talks about monuments. Landgraver noted the Planning <br /> Commission recently had a situation where the monuments were constructed and the citizen indicated that <br /> they did include the monuments on the landscaping plan that the City reviewed. Landgraver asked what <br /> the language regarding monuments relates to. <br /> Barnhart stated the draft ordinance would make monuments similar to any other accessory structure. <br /> Barnhart stated the code currently requires a survey for a monument and the draft ordinance removes that <br /> requirement and instead requires the property owner to identify the corner markers. <br /> Schoenzeit asked what would happen if it was a new project. <br /> Thiesse commented there would be a certified site plan. <br /> Barnhart stated that house would require a certified survey under the ordinance just like it did three <br /> months ago. Barnhart stated the challenge in that situation was that the contractor did not show the <br /> monuments on the survey and made the decision later to add the monuments. As an accessory structure, <br /> the City would not require a new survey for the monuments. Barnhart stated the certified site plan can be <br /> modified without a survey. <br /> Landgraver asked how the City will determine if this is successful going into the future. <br /> Barnhart stated if Staff starts receiving negative comments about the impact to the neighborhood or things <br /> like that,it would cause concern. If the City needs to spend more time on code enforcement,that would <br /> Page 35 of 43 <br />