My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
11-14-1994 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
1994
>
11-14-1994 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/11/2023 12:21:27 PM
Creation date
12/11/2023 12:17:25 PM
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.
/
402
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 MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 24. 1994 <br />(#S> #1974 TYLER CORBIN, U$S NORTH SHORE DRIVE - CONDITIONAL <br />USE PERMIT- RESOLUTION #34S7 <br />Mr. .Cofbin was present. <br />Mabusth reported that the former property owner was before the Council in 1982 for a <br />CUP and variance to allow two tiers of retaining wall and stairs that have since <br />deteriorated. This application has been amended to include a three>tier boulder wall, 4' in <br />hdghL with a walkvmy and access slurs to the dtordine. TMs includes an increase to the <br />hardcover amount in the 0-75' zone only because the calculations were done after the <br />original stairs were removed. <br />Mabusth said the Planning Conumssion gave conditional approval fof the permit with a <br />stipulation to provide a landscapii^ plan to buffer the starkness of the walls as wdl as <br />removal of a driveway within die 0-75'zone, located on the east side of the prt^wrty <br />within a five-year period. This would allow the driveway to exist up to where the <br />entrance to tte toick-undcr garage is located for access to the gar^. The Planning <br />Comnnssion addressed the financial hardslup allowhtg the driveway removal to occur <br />over a five-year time period. <br />The hardcover is 28% in the 0-75' zone and 64% in the 75-250* zone. The Plaimhtg <br />Commisston fdt this was excessive. The apf^cant's porition was that he did not put the <br />hardcover in, as the property is still as he bought iL nor has he added to it. <br />Mabusth said the City was concerned with the driveway and rqiorted that in the three <br />land-use files on record, none of the inqrroveniem plans showed the acceis drive. The <br />most recent apfdication plan shows only the two-tiered retainiiig wall. <br />Mr. Corbin said the builder he hired to replace the deteriorated timber wall was to have <br />applied for a permit and did not. He reiterated Ms o|»nion that tins project will actually <br />decrease the hardcover percentage in the 0-75' zone, even though die plans show an <br />increase, because of the calculations having been done after the original walls were <br />removed. His plan is to install grass in the area between the old walls. Corbin remarked <br />he would also like to include lot 74, wluch he owns, in the hardcover calculations and <br />would be willing to combine lots if necessary. Goenen asked for clarification on the <br />hardcover amount. It was noted that the City has only the amount listed on the <br />application and what is visibly there now to go by. Goetten informed the aiqilicant that <br />the only time the City has an opportunity to make improvements on a property is when an <br />applicalion such as tMs comes before the Council for a variance or CUP. <br />The Council is concerned with the runoff entering the lake fiom the driveway in question. <br />Jabbour redirected the Council to look at the previous applications brought before the <br />Council in 1976,1978, and 1982. Nowhere did the driveway present itself on any <br />application. Jabbour's opinion is that the applicant should a^ for a variance for tins <br />dfWeway.
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.