My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
05/21/2012 Planning Commission Minutes
Orono
>
Agendas, Minutes & Packets
>
Planning Commission
>
Minutes
>
2010-2019
>
2012
>
05/21/2012 Planning Commission Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/20/2012 3:27:49 PM
Creation date
8/20/2012 3:27:48 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
20
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).
View images
View plain text
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMNiISSION MEETING <br /> Monday,May 21,2012 <br /> 6:30 o'clock p.m. <br /> someone other than the property owner,that owner should have to provide for parking on his property. <br /> Leskinen stated parking of trailers could be restricted rather than vehicle parking. <br /> Mattick stated Staff can look at the parking component and determine whether trailer parking should be <br /> banned,but then it becomes a policing issue and determining whether they have a boat at a neighbor's <br /> house. <br /> Landgraver stated his recollection is that some neighbors expressed concern about the parking and people <br /> coming and going that do not live in the neighborhood.Landgraver stated in his view the 72 hours would <br /> help solve the issues associated with someone other than the property owner utilizing the dock. <br /> Mattick stated the language could also be tried on a trial basis and revised in the future if problems arise. <br /> Schoenzeit commented it appears the Planning Commission is comfortable with Item No. 3 and that the <br /> Planning Commission would like the current code cleaned up. <br /> Levang asked whether Items 1 and 2 would be eliminated. <br /> Schoenzeit stated in his view Items 1 and 2 are not practical but that he would welcome input by the City <br /> Council. Schoenzeit stated in his view Item No. 3 is an achievable improvement. <br /> Leskinen commented that the language in Item No. 2 is also ambiguous. <br /> Landgraver stated he is not sure how to deal with the owner/occupant language and that in his view Item <br /> Nos.2 and 3 should be passed on to the City Council. <br /> Schwingler noted Item No.2 deals with people who live in the neighborhood. <br /> Mattick stated the 1,000 feet may be excessive and that perhaps the number could be reduced. <br /> Leskinen asked whether one foot of the property would be counted in the 1,000 feet or whether it should <br /> be the entire house. Leskinen questioned from where the 1,000 feet would be measured. <br /> Mattick indicated the easiest way to measure would be from property line to property line. Mattick stated <br /> he is not sure whether the City has the technology to measure from house to house. <br /> Gaffron stated the City's GPS system would allow them to be within 10 feet of the house or property line. <br /> Leskinen commented in her opinion that will need to be addressed. <br /> Landgraver commented 1,000 feet may be generous and that it perhaps should be limited further. <br /> Levang asked whether someone that lives in the neighborhood but does not own lakeshore would be <br /> allowed to dock their boat there all summer. <br /> Page 5 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.