Laserfiche WebLink
1 <br />MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION WORK SESSION <br />WEDNTSDAY, FEBRl'ARY 23. 1994 <br />Gaffron noted the i>nly area where pressure to develop a new marina might ixcur is the DNR <br />lots and other land between Lakeside and North Shore Drive This is not in the B-2 /one. The <br />property between Gayles and Lakeside is not large enough tt> meet the two acre standards so the <br />only thing that might be expected to ha^'j en is that these two existing marinas will encroach into <br />that area. <br />i,.nith asked if the code were written to be more realistic for the existing marinas if it would <br />affect development of a possible future marina. Gaffron responded that the property between <br />Gayles and Lakeside could be controlled in expansion through hardcover ordinances, etc. The <br />t^her piece would only have to meet the lowered standards so that if the 75* setback were <br />changed to 25’, that is what new development would follow. Gattron did not think that would <br />be a wise change. <br />Schroeder asked Anderson what he intended to do with North Shore Drive Marina. Anders.^. <br />responded that he would continue with the plan on record with the City. By working with the <br />City, it may help some time in the future if they ask for something. <br />Schroeder asked if there was a way for the City to prevent a situation at a marina from gettrng <br />worse, and how could changes bt accomplished. Gaffron explained that the City could give the <br />marinas a time frame, i.e. live years, in which to make changes. In a negative situation, the <br />marina might go to court stating they were not going to make required changes. The courts may <br />say that five years is a reasonable period in which to require changes. If the City is not will ng <br />to wait for marinas needing changed to make zoning applications, then the code might be <br />amended using a time frame for required changes. <br />Schroeder asked that code language be kept the same and staff work with the marinas and <br />neighbors to develop specific landscaping plans within a five-year period which would meet with <br />Planning Commission approval (landscaping, reasonable setbacks, etc.). If these plans were not <br />completed over a five-year peritnl, there should be some consequences Gaffron responded he <br />would like to work up a draft and review it with the City Attorney for his response. Peterson <br />thought enforcement would always l>e a problem. Gaffron added that everyone would have to <br />know what the sanctions are at the end of the five-year period and they would have to be <br />something the courts would support. <br />The neighbors felt this was a step forward. Schroeder encouraged staff to get input from the <br />neighbors in developing the plans for setbacks, screening, fences, etc. Zullo was in agreement <br />with the idea of a time frame and consequetices. <br />Nolan asked if this concept had been attempted before. Gaffron referred to Subd. 17, Variances <br />for Required Landscaping Areas which was a similar attempt in 1975. Nolan asked how a new <br />plan would be any different from the 1975 code. Gaffron noted in the 1975 attempt there were <br />no sanctions if the plans wete not completed and no incentives to ciMuplete them. Scl .ocder <br />12