07-14-2014 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL Monday, June 23, 2014 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 17 of 30 (8. 14-3666 LUKE KUJAWA ON BEHALF OF EOF INVESTMENTS, LLC, 1440-1442 SHORELINE DRIVE – REZONING, Continued) McMillan noted the 1442 property has been used as a residence by the caretaker. Levang stated she is not interested in a unique rule for one marina and that in her view it could be troublesome. Levang stated in her view 1440 is residential and should remain as residential to provide a buffer to 1432. Levang stated she is extremely concerned about the traffic in the area and the safety of pedestrians. Levang indicated she drives by the area regularly to see what is going on and that it is a nightmare. Levang stated she does not want to assume the liability for someone being killed in that area given the amount of traffic, the speed of the vehicles, and the sightlines. Levang indicated she is okay with 1442 being rezoned commercial but not 1440. McMillan stated 1440 would become a true residential lot and not have parking for the marina even if the applicant retains ownership of it. Levang stated in a perfect world the business and the boats should be on the same side, which is not the case here, and that there are boat slips on both sides of the road, which means that there is pedestrian traffic. Levang stated in her view there is a huge safety issue. Levang stated she can envision some positive elements of a sub district since the City would be able to require certain restrictions, but that she still has trouble with writing a unique code for one property. McMillan noted the 1440 property would also serve as a buffer to the docks. Levang noted Tanager Bay is a small body of water and that people docking their boats will go by the Johnson property. Levang indicated she has a concern about how close those boats will come to the Johnson property. Printup stated he is in agreement with the comments regarding the traffic and the pedestrians crossing the road. McMillan asked if the applicant would lose a lot of parking if one of the residential lots is eliminated. Gaffron indicated Exhibit D shows the conceptual site plan and that they would lose approximately a dozen spaces and possibly as many as 15. McMillan stated she is asking as it relates to what exists today. Gaffron stated what is approved under the agreement is 26 parking spaces, but that the only way to achieve 26 parking spaces is to double park the vehicles. The applicant did hire an organization to handle the parking situation last year. Gaffron stated if you take the 1440 parcel out of the mix that would make it more difficult to accomplish the traffic circulation. The Planning Commission felt that something fairly reasonable could be done with both properties, but that if one of the properties is eliminated, it would make it more difficult to accomplish the circulation and other improvements. Item #03 - CC Agenda - 07/14/2014 Approval of Council Minutes 06/23/2014 [Page 17 of 30]