My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
10-23-2000 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
1950-2024
>
2000-2009
>
2000
>
10-23-2000 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/15/2023 9:34:36 AM
Creation date
3/15/2023 9:29:02 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.
/
439
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
P-- <br />ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING <br />MONDAY, OCTOBER 9,2000 <br />5. U2604 James Anderst, 3380 Shoreline Drive—Commercial Site Plan Review and <br />Conditional Use Permit—Resolution No. 4530—Continued <br />against the applicant. The City reserves the right to review the conditional use <br />permit on an annual basis. <br />Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 0. <br />*6. ^2608 Philip and Karen Skoog, 280 Tonka Avenue—^Variance Resolution No. <br />4531 <br />Kelley moved, and Peterson seconded, to adopt Resolution No. 4531 granting a <br />variance to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.27, Subdivision 5(B) to allow a rear <br />yard setback of 39 feet where 50 feet is required and to allow a front yard setback of <br />43 feet where 50 feet is required. <br />Vote: Ayes 3, Nays 0. <br />*1. #2609 Alan and Maxine Opheim, 1985 Eagerness Point Road—Variance <br />Resolution No. 4532 <br />Kelley moved, and Peterson seconded, to adopt Resolution No. 4532 granting a <br />variance to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.25, Subdivision 6(B) to allow <br />construction of a porch on an exbting concrete slab located 6.9 feet from the side <br />yard lot line where 10 feet is required and Section 10.22, Subdivision 1(B) and <br />Section 10.56, Subdivision 16(C)(6) to allow the porch to encroach 73 feet into the <br />average lakeshore setback. <br />Vote: Ayes 3, Nays 0. <br />8. #2610 Jerome J. Hall, 80 Leaf Street—Afterthe-Fact Variances <br />Kelley stated that the Planning Commission recommended denial of the plan they <br />reviewed. A revised plan came to the Council without benefit of the Planning <br />Commission reviewing it. He stated he would like to deny the application, or send it <br />back to the Planning Commission for their review, Flint aiid Peterson agreed. Mayor <br />Jabbour explained the situation to the applicant. Weinberger stated he could appear on <br />the Planning Commission’s agenda on October 16,2000, and that he had already had a <br />public hearing. <br />Peterson moved, and Flint seconded, to send the application back to the Planning <br />Commbsion. <br />Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 0.
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.