Laserfiche WebLink
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD MAY 28, 1991 <br />i' ■ <br />■ <br />F-¥ <br />h <br />,-p;" <br />y <br />P- <br />PUBLIC COMMENTS CONTINUED <br />Mabusth noted tnat it is ner <br />buildings may bf=» moved Dff the property. <br />ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT: <br />under St mi:ng that the <br />(|6)ZONING PILE I1S55-E.W. BLANCH, JR. <br />2501 OLD BEACH ROAD <br />REQUEST TO AMEND RESOLUTION I2947-FINAL PLAT APPROVAL <br />RESOLUTION #2966 <br />Mr. James MacKinnon. Attorney, was present on behalf of his <br />client, E.W, Blanch, Jr. <br />Bernhardson explained that the applicant had requested that <br />the language pertaining to Lot 8 be revised so tnat it may be <br />sold to someone other than the Freshwater Foundation or <br />Institute. He noted that Lot 8 conforms to all standards of the <br />B-4 Code, and that anv future use of Lot 8 v/ould have to conform <br />to the B-4 Zoning. <br />It was moved by Butler, seconded by Goetten, to adopt <br />Resolution #2966, amending Resolution !»2947, which gran- approval <br />of the final plat of "The Marsh at Lafayette". Ail voted aye. <br />Motion passed. <br />(#7)ZONING PILE «1641-RICHARO KEAVENY <br />3145 SHORELINE DRIVE <br />COMMERCIAL SITE PLAN <br />Bernhardson summarized the information provided in Jeanne <br />Msbusth's May 15, 1991 memo, which outlined historical aspect of <br />the contamination, as well as the proposed recovery program to <br />clean it up. Bernhardson noted that the Planning Commission had <br />recommended approval of the Commercial Site Plan Review. <br />Subsequent to the Planning Commission meeting. Staff discussed <br />the issue further and is recommending, should there be a notion <br />to approve, that it include language requiring removal of the <br />temporary structure once the recovery program has been completed. <br />Jabbour asked whether it would be appropriate for the City <br />to require the posting of a bond to assui. * hat the building is <br />removed and the site is restored. <br />Bernhardson stated that it may be more effective to include <br />language in the agreement stating that in the event the building <br />is not removed by a certain time, the City will remove it and <br />assess the costs back to the property owner. <br />Butler agreed that there needs to be some mechanism in place <br />so there is assurance that the City will not v/md up paying to <br />have the building removed. <br />Mayor Peterson asked if the building will meet the required