My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
06-24-2019 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
2019
>
06-24-2019 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/24/2019 10:28:13 AM
Creation date
9/24/2019 10:23:54 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
148
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
MINUTES OF THE <br />ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING <br />Monday, June 10, 2019 <br />7:00 o'clock p.m. <br />Walsh stated the Council can discuss variances all day long, but until a specific request comes before the <br />City Council, they would just be spinning their wheels. The City Council can talk discuss philosophically <br />what the City's practice is, but that the Council has discussed cleaning these up. <br />Seals commented she does not believe the Council has actually sat down and discussed it and that she <br />would be in favor of discussing it at a work session. <br />Printup noted the Comprehensive Plan has a section that talks about the fire lanes. <br />Walsh stated the DNR also says you should reserve an easement for utilities. <br />Seals stated she is fine with voting on it at some point, but she would like additional discussion about it at <br />a work session. <br />Crosby indicated he is on the fence and that he is fine with a work session to try to come up with some <br />type of consensus. <br />Rief stated other properties related to the fire department are being brought forward at the next work <br />session and this could be one of them. <br />Printup commented this situation is similar to Chevy Chase who were claiming a ditch was a park and <br />who is to say that those neighbors are not going to request to divide that. <br />Walsh stated you have to evaluate the request on its merits. <br />Printup stated he does not want to open up a can of worms and that the City has had cases where there is <br />public property where some have argued it has been beautified. <br />Johnson stated this is an applicant who headed in this direction, at least in part, based on Staff direction <br />that this is one option, and that he wants to be sensitive to that. If this was not on the lake, you could get <br />rid of this easement right away, but because it is, he can understand why there is some pause. Johnson <br />indicated he would like to hear from the applicant. <br />Stephen Paidosh, Applicant, stated their objective was to remove the existing residence and build a new <br />home on the property. The home was originally built back in 1962, and that he is not sure if there were <br />fill issues at some point, but the foundation has settled. The windows have been corrected from time to <br />time, and if you try to structurally fix the foundation, all the windows would need to be fixed again. <br />Basically one of the issues they ran into was in relation to wanting to relocate the public street access to <br />Park Drive. There is an incline on the driveway that faces north, and when something faces north, salt is <br />not as effective and the driveway becomes snow packed. The relocation of the driveway requires an <br />easement and a variance to access due to a utility pole and a stop sign to get onto County Road 19. If the <br />driveway were relocated, it would come out too close to the stop sign, which would probably be an issue. <br />In working with an architect, an L-shaped house was designed with the garage facing Park Drive to give <br />them a straight shot to the road. There is actually a tarred area from when they put in the drainage ditch a <br />few years ago and the home on the other side of the proposed vacation uses that. <br />Page 10 of 20 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.