Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br /> Monday,June 17,2013 <br /> 6:30 o'clock p.m. <br /> Staff feels the simple solution proposed to eliminate this potential confusion is to clarify that subhead(b) <br /> is only applicable to properties that are not in the Shoreland Overlay District. Planning Staff recommends <br /> approval of the amendment. <br /> Landgraver asked if anyone has reviewed this document outside of Staff. <br /> Gaffron indicated the City Attorney will be reviewing it this week. He noted that occasionally issues will <br /> arise with recently amended codes no matter how many eyes look at the document. Gaffron stated <br /> initially the changes were quite significant to the ordinance and that this is a very minor correction. <br /> Chair Leskinen opened the public hearing at 7:18 p.m. <br /> There were no public comments regarding this application. <br /> Chair Leskinen closed the public hearing at 7:18 p.m. <br /> Schoenzeit moved,Thiesse seconded,to recommend approval of Application#13-3610, City of <br /> Orono,Amend City Code Section Lots of Record 78-72. VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 0. <br /> PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS <br /> 4. REPORT FROM PLANNING COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVES ON CITY <br /> COUNCIL MEETINGS—MAY 28,2013,AND JUNE 10,2013 <br /> Thiesse reported at the May 28 meeting the City Council discussed the accessory uses and structure <br /> ordinance amendment and concluded that the recreational and sporting play structures should be <br /> combined. The ordinance amendment would be coming back to the City Council at their June 10 <br /> meeting. The Council also discussed the wetland buffer ordinance, which was approved. The other <br /> planning applications were placed on the Consent Agenda. <br /> Landgraver reported at the June 10 meeting, the Council discussed the application on Tonka Avenue. The <br /> Council discussed the shed that is located in front of the principal residence and concluded that the shed <br /> should be removed and relocated since they could not find a hardship for the shed to remain in that spot. <br /> The Council had a lengthy discussion regarding the boat club application and the application was <br /> eventually tabled. No new issues were raised except the Council brought up the point that there is not a <br /> formal parking plan. <br /> Thiesse stated there likely was a parking plan with the original application. <br /> Gaffron indicated the parking plan did not have the spaces formally laid out to arrive at the correct <br /> number. <br /> Landgraver stated the gist of it was that the Council wanted to see a formal parking plan and that they <br /> were more in favor of approving the additional dock slips that were in close proximity with the other dock <br /> slips used by the boat club rather than in a different section of the marina. Landgraver stated the fuel <br /> trailer is also considered a mobile device and there were some concerns raised about that. <br /> Page 8 of 9 <br />