My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
PC Minutes 1994
Orono
>
Planning Commission
>
1994
>
PC Minutes 1994
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/10/2019 10:15:22 AM
Creation date
2/10/2012 12:14:48 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
157
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).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING <br />PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO SECTION 10.419 • ' <br />B -2 LAKESHORE BUSINESS DISTRICT HELD ON JUNE 6, 1994 <br />Peterson thought the marina owners had perhaps come to the same conclusions as the Planning ry <br />Commission which may be the reason there are no marina owners present. They may feel that <br />their concerns had been discussed throughout the meetings and it was not necessary to be in <br />attendance at this public hearing. Gaffron commented that he talked with one of the marina <br />owners recently who was aware of the public hearing. <br />Schroeder agreed that the City could do little to affect the physical characteristics of the marinas <br />but may be able to affect their operations. He commented that Rowlette had originally suggested <br />that there may be some potential "other" uses that could be added to the code in exchange for <br />getting better physical compliance. <br />Berg commented that she was pleased that snowmobiles were to come in as a conditional use <br />permit. <br />Smith agreed with comments made by other members and felt an excellent job had been done. <br />Peterson asked if staff had any feeling as to how Council would react to the draft dated May 20, <br />1994. <br />Mabusth noted that the Mayor had stated the Planning Commission should leave the uses alone . <br />and work with the performance standards. Members agreed. Schroeder added that the uses <br />needed to be considered in order to deal with performance standards. He did not think marinas <br />were particularly bad neighbors and it was important for the City to continue to work with the <br />marinas. <br />Lindquist added that significant improvements had been made at Windward and Sailor's World <br />as they came in for variances. Mabusth also stated that as the marinas want to make changes, <br />the City could require improvements. However, if the marinas don't come in for improvement <br />projects, the City has little clout in requiring improvements. <br />Rowlette stated the Planning Commission needed to address uses to get the marinas "in the door" <br />so the City could require improvements. <br />Mabusth felt the marina owners started to turn when they saw that a "wish list" could require <br />changes from them, although at first the marina owners looked positively at increased conditional <br />uses. <br />Schroeder stated they should recommend to Council that the City should work with the marinas <br />and avoid any adversarial relationships. <br />2 <br />• <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.