Laserfiche WebLink
r <br />MINLTKS OK THK ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION WORK SKSSION <br />WEDNESDAY, MARCH 9 1994 <br />Dunn commented on the landscaping issue. He thought the goals and ohjecti\es of the City were <br />reasonable but there h;i\e basically been no changes from what was done 10 years ago. He <br />noted the EPA has their own program and the marinas are already living with those expectations. <br />He added that a list has been established by the Plaiming Commission of things a marina <br />operator can aral cannot do and that has made iIk operators even less flexible than 11 sears ago. <br />He suggested the Commission make their requirements less burdensi>me - minimum standards <br />enn be dealt with. He commented that last year is the first time anyt>ne fn>m Council had visited <br />his marina and they had a different perception of marina operations after leaving. As a result <br />of the proposed changes, he stated, there was no reason for an operator to attempt to make a <br />change at their marina because they would be told to make other required improvements or quit <br />doing something they have already been doing. He expressed disappointment with having less <br />incentive to make improvements than there was three years ago. He did not think there would <br />be any ra:w marinas on Lake Minnetonka only the possibility of expanding existing marinas. <br />Smith asked if Dunn was referring to the "Revised List of Uses" or the landscaping which w’as <br />part of the current discussion of Subd. 17. Dunn stated landscaping was not the is.sue but the <br />’•St of uses. <br />Mabusth asked if the Commission had recently reviewed the original directives from the Council <br />or if any Councilmembers had talked with Planning Commission members. Peterson did not <br />think so. Gaffron thought that discussion may take place at the next joint work session. March <br />11. Planning Commission members agreed. <br />DeSantis objected to the "Revised List of Uses" being brought to Council with a <br />recommendation from the Planning Commission. He felt the marinas would conform with <br />landscaping, parking and runoff issues but there would be problems with some of the other uses. <br />He thought "the best incentive would be to give the marinas enough credit ... that they will work <br />within the framework and that which has been grandfathered in. Let’s not make a big issue out <br />of .stuff that really isn't a big issue." Working together on landscaping and keeping neighbors <br />happy is important. Peterson noted the public hearings will bring much discussion on all these <br />issues. Both the public and marina owners will have opportunities to express their opinions. <br />Lindquist asked if DeSantis wanted to see all of the activities the marinas have ever performed <br />in the past included in the code as permitted uses. DeSantis agreed. He dvies not agree with <br />the wav the "Li.st of Uses" has been divided. <br />Dunn replied the real issue is landscaping and would agree with minimum standards. Anything <br />the marinas try to do is tied to land issues. He did not understand how boat rental could be <br />considered as an accessory' use at a marina and should be permitted as this is where Ix^at sales <br />happen. Signs should be a permitted use subject to City zoning, why is it an accessory use? <br />.fuLfc.