My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
02-28-2005 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
2005
>
02-28-2005 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/11/2023 10:51:41 AM
Creation date
1/11/2023 10:25:30 AM
Metadata
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
422
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
i w <br />Date Application Received: 08-18-04 <br />Date Application Complete: 09-13-04 <br />120-Day Review Period Extended: 03-10-05 <br />--------------- <br />FED k 6 <br />REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION <br />CiTY Or oriwuO <br />Date:February 25,2005 <br />Item No, 5 <br />Department Approval: <br />Name: Melanie Curli| <br />Administrator Approval:Agenda Section: <br />Title: City Planner <br />Item Description: <br />#04-3052 - Eric Vogstrom - 2618 Casco Point Road - Variances <br />Zoning District: <br />Lot Area: <br />Lot Width: <br />LR-IC, One Family Lake.shore Residential, 0.5 acre/100’ <br />0.47 acre/20,561 s.f. <br />100’ parallel to the shore & 80’ @ 75’ setback <br />List of Exhibits: <br />A. Resolution <br />B. VRP Agreement & Amendment <br />C. Council Action Notice 02-23-05 <br />D. Draft Minutes from 02-14-05 <br />E. Letter from Jeff Essen received 02-24-05 <br />F. Photo <br />Application Summary: <br />At the February M"* Council meeting the Vegetation Restoration Plan with amendments to the <br />Agreement was approved with a 3-1-1 vote. The Council also voted on the variance Resolution which <br />resulted in a failed 2-2-1 vote, afler which there was discussion leading to the tabling of the variance <br />request. 'Die applicant has not revised his request nor has staff made any changes to the attached <br />Resolution. <br />Boncstroo reviewed the VRP and indicated tliat it was an acceptable plan for the vegetation <br />replacement. Recently Bonestroo was asked to comment on the tree for tree (1:1 ratio) replacement or <br />whether additional trees were more appropriate. As a result of the mature tree removals the tree <br />canopy on the property has been significantly reduced. The proposed location, type and si/c of trees <br />proposed will mature and eventually result in a similar level of canopy. In order to compensate for the <br />slow growth time it may be appropriate to supplement with additional trees. However, there is not <br />sulTicient space to place additional trees within the areas of tree removals. Any new trees Irave to be <br />planted substantially closer to the house where there weren’t trees previously. <br />Regarding the 36” oak tree on the neighboring property within 10’ of the proposed house, care should <br />be taken with construction practices within the area of tlic root growth. An arborist should be brought
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.