My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
15-3759
Orono
>
Planning & Zoning
>
Ordinance Development
>
15-3759 Vacation Rentals
>
15-3759
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/18/2019 2:23:28 PM
Creation date
1/27/2017 3:19:05 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
151
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
FILE#15-3759 ' <br /> 16 Fabruary 201fi <br /> Page 2 of 2 <br /> by the Sherriff and the City is lacking in effectiveness. <br /> Linda Molaski, 1925 Concordia, noted her contracts with renters are stricter than <br /> the cities proposed regulations. <br /> Jenny Carter, 2780 Shadywood, former inn keeper, rents a room in her house <br /> and she is more stringent that the proposed ordinance. Does have a cancern <br /> with minimum stays. She wants the City to understand that haw this industry is <br /> regulated says a lot about the city. Are people stranger, or merely visitors. She <br /> noted the VBRO rates guests, and that information can be used by the renter to <br /> determine appropriateness. <br /> Don Driggs owns Deering Island. He does not think the provisian that excludes <br /> nan-primary residences be included. He noted that much ofthe regulation is <br /> already covered by existing laws, and need not be readdressed. <br /> Katherine Kitt, 3b35 North Shore drive rents her home, and questioned the <br /> number of issues that are triggering this discussion. She noted that her contract <br /> is stricter than the ordinance. <br /> Janie Heard, 2795 Shadywood Road, requested no changes ta the ordinances <br /> already in place, felt they weren't needed <br /> Paul Larson was concerned that any changes now couldn't be fully vetted with <br /> the snowbird owners away for#he winter. (Letters were sent to praperty <br /> owners' addresses listed in Hennepin County Records, including California and <br /> Washington requesting comment.) <br /> Colledively, those speaking suggested provisions#3, 6, 9, 13, be removed. <br /> Exhibit B, Comparison of Provisions is intended to provide commentary regardingthe <br /> respond to comments stating that the regarding the code already addresses some of the <br /> issues. Items in italics are already addressed in the city code. <br /> Exhibit C represents the letters received to date, for and against the proposed <br /> ordinance. <br /> The Planning Commission is asked to compfete one af the following actions: <br /> 1. Recommend approval ofthe ordinance as presented <br /> 2. Recommend approval of the ordinance with changes <br /> 3. Table action, directing staff to complete specific research. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.