My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
05/19/2014 Planning Commission Minutes
Orono
>
Agendas, Minutes & Packets
>
Planning Commission
>
Minutes
>
2010-2019
>
2014
>
05/19/2014 Planning Commission Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/21/2018 10:49:50 AM
Creation date
12/21/2018 10:49:46 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
31
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).
View images
View plain text
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br /> Monday,May 19,2014 <br /> 6:30 o'clock p.m. <br /> Leskinen asked if a sub-district would allow the City to incorporate some of the B-2 standards with <br /> certain restrictions, such as greater setbacks. <br /> Gaffron indicated it would and that a Comprehensive Plan Amendment would also accompany this. <br /> Gaffron stated the two residential properties could be re-guided to allow certain commercial aspects and <br /> not others. <br /> Schoenzeit stated when the City looks at certain things in the City, whether it is hardcover or rezoning, <br /> those are pretty consistent promises to the residents. Schoenzeit stated in his view this property was <br /> clearly some type of hybrid and that it would be unreasonable for the resident to the north to consider it as <br /> purely residential. Schoenzeit stated it would also be unreasonable to rezone it to purely commercial and <br /> that in his opinion the solution needs to strongly respect the residential border. <br /> Landgraver stated the rezoning cannot be done in a vacuum and that there needs to be some type of <br /> hybrid. Landgraver stated the City should take this opportunity to put something in there that <br /> accommodates both parties. <br /> Schoenzeit stated the comment about how someone will line up to access the dock should also be taken <br /> into consideration. <br /> Leskinen asked if the Planning Commission were to recommend this for rezoning, even if it is sub- <br /> district, whether the City has the authority to put any docking parameters in that zone. <br /> Gaffron stated the City has for a number of decades taken the position that unless the LMCD is doing <br /> something the City finds unacceptable,that they defer to the LMCD. Gaffron stated the City does not <br /> have codes addressing the size of docks and other elements. <br /> Leskinen asked if that also covers location of docks. <br /> Gaffron indicated that has also been left to the LMCD. Gaffron stated there are resolutions going back a <br /> number of decades that speak to that issue and that the City will assert whatever authority is necessary to <br /> protect its jurisdiction. <br /> Schoenzeit stated it is important that all parties have an active role in the creation of this hybrid district. <br /> Thiesse asked if there is any benefit to a herringbone pattern to the docks to avoid the 90-degree angle. <br /> Rich Anderson stated in his view 66 feet is sufficient room to turn into the docks. <br /> Thiesse stated his biggest concern with the dock is boats coming in at 2 a.m. <br /> Anderson commented the lake has gotten quieter over the years. Anderson stated the original drawing <br /> that was submitted by Jim Rivers would not fit there and that in order to get the correct distance in <br /> between, he came out over to the side. Anderson stated while he took steps to make sure he was <br /> compliant on his property, his understanding is that Mr. Rivers obtained a special variance from the <br /> LMCD but that it was illegal when it was first put in. <br /> Page 22 of 31 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.