My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
09-22-1980 Planning Packet
Orono
>
Planning Commission
>
1980
>
09-22-1980 Planning Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/15/2023 12:08:40 PM
Creation date
2/15/2023 12:08:08 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
49
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
REGUIJ a R IlEETIHG OF THE OROHO COUNCIL, OCTOBER 30, 1979 Page 'A.Sr <br />Massenqale moved, Iliirr‘seconded, to deny the application <br />of Charles Carl, 3685 North Shore Drive, to vacate <br />the lake access based upon the Supreme Court decision <br />and there are no finding of facts to determine that <br />it would be a benefit to the public to vacate. Staff was <br />instructed to review the area for needed maintenance <br />and to define area and uses of the area. Motion, <br />Ayes (5) - Nays (0) . <br />VACATION <br />3685 North Shor <br />(Continued) <br />Alan Olson, City Planner, entered into <br />the request of the Development Group, <br />a conditional use permit, variance and <br />review at 3701 Shoreline Drive, dated <br />1979, which states: <br />the record <br />Inc., for <br />building plan <br />October 26, <br />CONDITIONAL USE <br />PERfilT, etc. <br />3701 Shoreline <br />S507 <br />Development Grc <br />These comments are in response to Mr. <br />letter of October 25, 1979, which was <br />a meeting between him, Jeanne Mabusth, <br />earlier that day. (Oberhauser letter <br />Oberhauser's <br />written after <br />and myself <br />- Panes 5 •* 8) <br />Note 1, Page 2 - Zoning: Prior to 1^74,^all <br />commercial zoning ended in Lot 7, east ^ <br />shows the boundary in a curved line roughly <br />the wetlands. The legal descriptions show a corr <br />100' X 200' as marked on your Exhibit 6. <br />Note 2, Page 2 - A site inspection today confinned <br />the Westwood Survev of August 15, 1979: There is <br />standing water well over the sewer ^ <br />close to, if not on, the 935 contour. The flood <br />level was determined by Barr Engineering for HUD <br />through a detailed study area. <br />The 26* setback should apply to the edge of the marsh <br />as has been our ordinance. In my discussion with <br />L^a; rM^r^r-nd'^^rthif !s o^viru^ly nor the case <br />I do not think the ordinance re-quires a 26' setback <br />from the top of the Flood Plain (in <br />if this is dry nroimd at that point. I do thint <br />iharwo should Acquire the 26' snthaoV, (or a variance <br />thereto) from the actual edge of the wetlands. As <br />of my inspection today, I believe that these two <br />points coincide very closely. <br />Lrard!nrSnrtru°^?fn“or^;itrnr?5L°hiS <br />narsh <br />and hence docs also have assumulative capacity when <br />not actually flooded.(Continued, Pa
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.