My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
05-28-1996 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
1996
>
05-28-1996 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/5/2023 10:27:32 AM
Creation date
9/5/2023 10:26:10 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
161
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 MAY 1" 1996 <br />(UA - #2088 Winfield Stephens - Continued) <br />Callahan asked Goetten what direction she would give to the Planning Commission if the <br />application was sent back to them for review. Goetten said she would ask for reductions <br />in the plan. <br />Kelley said the plan does meet the 1 5% structural coverage and could be made even <br />larger. It was noted that the project could not become larger without additional <br />variances and the hardcover issue would also be a factor Mabusth commented that any <br />corrections made would be outside of the 75-250' setback Kelley asked and was <br />informed that the property is not lakeshore property. <br />Jabbour agreed that the project could be better by changing the setback or starting from <br />scratch but did not feel the issue could be forced. <br />The Council again questioned the vacation. Mabusth said if there is a question to the <br />document, she noted the vacation and lot have not yet been legally combined, and Staff <br />could reconfirm the \ alidity as a result of the combination <br />Callahan said if the vacation is the issue, then there is no need to send the application <br />back to the Planning Commission. I le asked what the Council could ask the Planning <br />Commission to do if the structural coverage meets the 15% allowable Goetten <br />responded that it has be«'n ’■^quested m the past. <br />V'ote on motion to refer back to Planning Commission: Ayes 2, Hurr, Goetten; Nays 3, <br />Kelley, Callahan, Jabbour Motion denied. <br />Jabbour moved, Kelley seconded, to approve Resolution #3720 per the Planning <br />Commission ’s recommendation providing Staff is satisfied of the vacation of the alley as <br />presently proposed and is included in the homc.stead parcel and legally combined. <br />Hurr said she had a problem with the hardship for the variance for the size of the <br />structure <br />Goetten said she feels that issue of the vacation is most important and that there are other <br />options available. <br />Vote; Ayes 3. Kelley. Callahan. Jabbour; Nays 2. Goetten. Hurr. Motion carried.
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.