Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br />ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br />Monday, June 16, 2014 <br />6:30 o’clock p.m. <br />_____________________________________________________________________________________ <br />  <br />Page 8 of 18  <br />  <br />out of conformity with their parking. Gaffron noted the marina operates for 12 weeks out of a 52-week <br />year and that there needs to be a balance between the expectations of the neighbors and the marina. <br /> <br />Schoenzeit asked if the use of the property has ebbed and flowed over the years or whether it has <br />regularly increased. <br /> <br />Gaffron stated there have been a number of owners over the years, and that when Jim Rivers owned the <br />property, Staff encountered some problems, butthat for the most part the marina has not been an issue. At <br />one point Jim Rivers had a neighbor who was aware of what was there and the City did not receive <br />complaints. Gaffron indicated at times through the years it has been an issue but that until the last year or <br />two, the City has not experienced a large number of complaints. Gaffron stated the marina now has a <br />residential owner who has an expectation that the City will be enforcing the conditional use permit on a <br />daily basis, which is not something that Staff can do. <br /> <br />Gaffron stated Staff is attempting to accomplish a happy medium for the residential owners by cleaning <br />up the two residential properties and improving the parking situation. <br /> <br />Lemke indicated he visited the site yesterday and that the commercial use is pretty intense. Lemke stated <br />the layout of the site does not work and that it needs organization and access control. In terms of the <br />benefit of the City, it would make sense to make that area a parking lot but that he is not certain of the <br />number of parking spaces. Lemke indicated he also does not like the amount of hardcover next to the <br />lake but that the current situation is not working out due to a number of factors. <br /> <br />Leskinen stated she is in agreement that the site does not work and that there have been a number of <br />drivers on this particular issue over the past few months. The Planning Commission has heard a litany of <br />complaints about the residential building on the property that is unoccupied and that clearly having a <br />dilapidated building or unusable building on the property will only intensify the blight. Leskinen stated <br />increasing the parking and fixing the intensity of the property would be the way to go but that she does <br />not agree with a straight rezoning to B-2. Leskinen stated if the City were to go in the direction of a <br />rezoning, she would be more in favor of a subdistrict where the City would have stronger controls and <br />that there should not be an intensification of the use of the property. <br /> <br />Landgraver stated he does agree that the use of the property needs to be looked at now that all of the <br />properties are under common ownership. Landgraver stated the greatest leverage the City would gain is a <br />subdivision that articulates the fact that this is a commercial piece of property abutting a residential piece <br />of property and that there needs to be extraordinary limitations on use and requirements to create a buffer <br />of noise and light and other irritants. Landgraver indicated he is inclined to continue to recommend to the <br />City Council the creation of a subdistrict with limitations on uses and requirements for screening. <br /> <br />Thiesse stated he also is in agreement with what has already been said but that in his view the docks <br />should not drive zoning. Thiesse stated organization of the area and access to the area is poor and should <br />be improved upon but that he has not heard anything tonight that has not been raised earlier. Thiesse <br />stated in his view it is not in the City’s best interests to rezone the property until there is a specific plan <br />presented. Thiesse stated if the applicant wants to put parking on the residential properties, that would be <br />fine as long as the parking plan presented works, but that the City should not allow anything else on the <br />residential properties. <br /> <br />Item #03 - PC Agenda - 07/21/2014 <br />Approval of Planning Commission Minutes 06/16/14 [Page 8 of 18]