Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br /> Tuesday,February 16,2016 <br /> 6:30 o'clock p.m. <br /> doing this and in return the City will remind them of the regulations. Landgraver stated the license could <br /> be renewed once a year and at that time any problems could be addressed. <br /> Leskinen stated the renewal piece can become the enforcement mechanism. <br /> Landgraver stated the code is also an enforcement piece. <br /> Lemke noted at the workshop the residents indicated they had even more restrictions than what the City is <br /> proposing. <br /> Schoenzeit stated he would rather see strong and consistent nuisance enforcement by the City rather than <br /> just identifying rental properties. Schoenzeit stated the enforcement should be consistent across the City. <br /> Leskinen asked if Commissioner Schoenzeit feels the police department or City would respond quicker to <br /> a complaint regarding a rental versus a general nuisance complaint. <br /> Schoenzeit stated regular residents are not under the same enforcement rules. <br /> Landgraver stated the draft ordinance is the framework and that the question is what the requirements <br /> should be. Landgraver stated the consensus appears to be that there should be some type of licensing or <br /> registration. <br /> Thiesse stated he likes the registration or licensure requirements. Thiesse stated he recalls the Planning <br /> Commission talking about boats and how only the owner's boat can be at the dock. <br /> Barnhart stated based on tonight's discussion so far, it sounds like Items 2 through 15 could be removed, <br /> with Item No. 1 being left in since some criteria is required if a license is to be revoked or not renewed. <br /> Lemke stated he likes No. 9, which limits it to a minimum of two nights; requiring a 30 minute response <br /> time instead of 60 minutes; and then also Nos. 8, 11, and 15. <br /> Barnhart noted 15 and 4 are very similar and that he would suggest keeping Item No. 4 and removing 15. <br /> Lemke stated he likes the ordinance and what it is attempting to accomplish. <br /> Leskinen stated she is not sure if it does any good to keep No. 2 if Item No. 1 is staying. Leskinen stated <br /> it sounds like Items 1, 4, 6 8, 9, 15 are being kept in. <br /> Thiesse noted Items 4 and 15 were similar and that 15 was going to be removed. <br /> Barnhart stated he heard that Items 1, 4, 6, 8, 9, and 11 should remain. <br /> Chair Leskinen opened the public hearing at 9:45 p.m. <br /> Jim Cornick, Council Member, stated he would like some discussion on Item No. 8. Cornick suggested <br /> the Planning Commission give some consideration to raising it to 21. <br /> Chair Leskinen closed the public hearing at 9:46 p.m. <br /> Lemke stated he likes that idea. <br /> Page 25 of 30 <br />