My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
09-08-1997 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
1997
>
09-08-1997 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/1/2023 9:16:27 AM
Creation date
8/1/2023 9:14:19 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.
/
230
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 REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL <br />MEETING HELD ON AUGUST 25,1997 <br />(#4 - #2238 Chic Dwight and Fred Guttormson - Continued) <br />Jabbour asked if there was any way to reduce the hardcover to oflf-sct the new hardcover. <br />Gafiron suggested the garage be moved forward. Gaffron also said he thought the loop <br />could be cHminated with the ability for maneuvering whhin the large pad out of the 75' <br />setback. He said the options had been explored, but the applicant's recreational vehicle <br />would be difficult to maneuver. In comparison to other similar properties, Gaffion <br />indicated that the loop is overbuilt. <br />Dwight questioned whether other properties are able to park on their streets. Jabbour <br />informed her that it was possible for the Council to allow parking again on the street. <br />Jabbour informed the applicants that the Council rardy allows nardcover in the 0-75* <br />setback and views the application timilar to the Planning Commission. He noted that if <br />the application was denied, the ^plicants could not submit a further application for sx <br />months. <br />Peterson said she would support the screening of the deck but saw a problem with the <br />extensive hardcover and the turnaround. She said she agrees with the Planning <br />Commission recommendations on the trade-offs, e^>ecially in light of the fact that there is <br />already a 2-car garage on the property. <br />Guttormson asked, if he eliminated the screened porch and requested the garage, whether <br />he would be allowed to keep the road to the lake and lakeside deck. Keller informed him <br />that the road to the lake must be eliimnated. He told Guttormson that he was upset that <br />the applicant was back before the Council after having previously approved <br />improvements and felt taken advantage of He indicated the applicant did not uphold the <br />terms of the resolution and proceeded to perform the work. Kelley said the ^plicant was <br />aware of the riilcs that had been established through the process. Guttormson said he got <br />the permits for the work that was done. <br />Goetten informed the applicants that she would like to see the Council and applicant <br />come to a mutual agreement but did feel the loop driveway must be eliminated. She said <br />the applicant should comply with the options presented by Staff and supports the garage <br />with removals as noted. <br />Jabbour asked the applicant if he wanted to have a motion on the ^plication or if he <br />preferred the application be tabled. Guttormson adeed that the application be tabled. <br />Jabbour said changes to the application would require review by the Planning <br />Commission. <br />Jabbour moved, Goetten seconded, to table Application #2238 until the applicant is ready <br />to take further action. City Attorney Barrett will draft a dated letter to that effect and <br />send to the applicant. Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 0.
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.