Laserfiche WebLink
r <br />MINI TES OF THE ORONO Pl.ANMNG COMMISSION WORK SESSION <br />WEDNESDAY, MARCH 9 1994 <br />allows for the continued use of an existing: use if nt't included on the current list of accepted <br />uses. Peterstm questioned wh> this section was necessary. Lindquist thought it should be taken <br />out also as the reference to S3.000 is not current. Gaffron explained this section was put in <br />place when the City was tiy ing to get marinas to pull back fa>m 350' to 200 ’. There are <br />references to other sections of tte code. Gaffron thought the City Aiti>rney may suggest leaving <br />at least parts of this code in place. Peterson questioned the $3,000 tair market value. Mabuslh <br />suggest^ the reference to structure could be removed. Lindquist thought the .section should be <br />reworked with the dollar figure updated if left in. Peterson suggested Gaffron have the City <br />Attorney give an opinion on this section. <br />Peterson asked if reference to the LMCD should be removed in Subd. 15. Section A. Gaffron <br />thought if reference to the LMCD were removed, other sections should be added referencing <br />docks since the LMCD is the regulating agency. Lindquist thought the LMCD should be left <br />in to be sure dtKk regulations were addressed. <br />Gaffron continued with discussion of Subd. 16, Variances, noting this is how variances are <br />currently dealt with and saw no need to make any changes. <br />Subd. 17, Variances for Required Landscaping Areas, was established with a four year time <br />frame for making required improvements. Gaffron stated that in previous discussions Planning <br />Commission members noted there was no incentive for completing a landscape plan and no <br />sanction if the plan was not done. Lindquist reiterated there was no way to enforce this section <br />so it should not be included in the code as written. Gaffron thought this could be included as <br />a set of directives for when a variance is granted but would not work to apply to each marina <br />at the current time. <br />Peterson asked what kind of incentives could be offered to marinas. <br />Rivers respt^nded that he has been in business in Orono for over 20 years and there has never <br />been a Council or Planning Commission that was happy with the marinas. Complaints the City <br />has received were always related to the appearance of the marinas not their operations. He <br />thought the City was working towards developing a set of minimum standards that could be met, <br />especially regarding setbacks, and then the City could be happy with the marinas. Minimum <br />landscaping and setback requirements could be established. Peterson agreed that was the original <br />intention but there have been problems with the "grandfathered" marina activities. Rivers added <br />that the EPA will have strict regulations on runoff and there will be no choice but to make the <br />improvements or there will be heavy fines and penalties. He felt if the City works with the <br />marinas, it could help with meeting EPA requirements. He would like to see an end to the <br />adversarial relationship and recognize that the marinas exist. Peterson questioned if the City was <br />qualified to do that, noting the EPA has struggled with runotf issues and is unsure what the <br />future changes may be.