My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
04-22-1991 Council Minutes
Orono
>
City Council
>
1991
>
04-22-1991 Council Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/30/2019 8:28:51 AM
Creation date
4/30/2019 8:28:50 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
28
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).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD APRIL 22, 1991 <br />(#9)ZONING FILE $1626 =TRAFF CONTINUED <br />the Lacy property line than the existing home." <br />Traff stated that he had been approached by Jim Mitchell at <br />6:30 p.m. this evening and he was asked to plant pine trees that <br />would cost between $5,000 and $10,000. He said, "Obviously new <br />construction is going to involve some plantings. I think it is <br />unfair at this point to ask me to make a $10,000 commitment for <br />new plantings and h-.ve t.-iat contingent on approval of the <br />Variances requested." <br />Goetten asked Mr. Traff i he would be agreeable to <br />providing additional screening after his home is constructed. <br />Traff replied, "I do not think there is any question that <br />there will be new plantings. However,, I am not asking anything <br />from the Mitchells, and I :think it is unfair for them to put me <br />in this position." <br />Goetten clarified that her question was not in relation to <br />the degree of planting requested by the Mitchells. She only <br />wished to know if some planting would occur as the years go by. <br />Mayor Petersen asked f.:)r clarification regarding the <br />proposed deck shown in front of the house. <br />Traff explained that the deck will be grade level, 'arid is <br />therefore not a concern with the average lakeshore setback. The <br />deck conforms to hardcover requirements and J_s entirely out of <br />the 7 ` , foot setback area. <br />Butler -noted t.aat i F this property was still under the <br />guidelines f.or one -acre zoning, as it was when initially <br />subdivided, the side yard setback would be 10 feet, rather than <br />.30 feet. <br />Jabbour stated . that he did not understand the basis for the <br />Planning Commission's recommendation to approve a lot width <br />Va. iance but deny a side setback Variance. It seemed to him that <br />if a lot width Variance is requested, it is likely that there <br />will be a Need for a ride setback Variance. He added that lot <br />has a bottle neck shape. <br />Goetten stated that, in her opinion, the new home proposed <br />by the Traffs greatly improves the property from a hardcover and <br />side setback standpoint. She believed that Mr. Traff had worked <br />hard to find a house that would suite the property, and had <br />compromised on the location. <br />Jabbour stated that he did not believe Council could dictate <br />the number of trees Mr_ Traff is to plant. He asked Mr_ Traff <br />what he intends to do for landscaping. <br />- 12 - <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.