PC Minutes 1994 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

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