Laserfiche WebLink
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD JULY 22, 1991 <br />Tv <br />(#6)ZONING FILE #1646-TRINITY LUTHERAN CHURCH CONTINUED <br />construction of a detached garage at Trinity Lutheran Church, <br />2060 Sixth Avenue North. All voted aye. Motion passed. <br />(#7)ZONING FILE #1656-DONALD L. MEYER <br />485 PARK AVENUE <br />VARIANCES-RESOLUTION #2991 <br />Donald Meyer was present. <br />Bernhardson explained that Mr. Meyer's application pertains <br />to a request for a side setback Variance, as well as a Variance <br />which would allow a nine foot separation between a principal <br />Structure and detached accessory structure. Bernhardson noted <br />that the Planning Commission recommended approva’ of this <br />application. <br />It was moved by Mayor Peterson, seconded by Goetten, to <br />adopt Resolution #2991, approving a three foot .^ide setback <br />Variance, and a one foot Variance to the requirement that there <br />be ten feat between a principal structure and a detached <br />accessory structure. <br />BILL" STUBBS(#8*)ZONING FILE 11658-LYNDON S. <br />255 FOX STREET <br />RENEWAL VARIANCE-RESOLUTION #2992 <br />It was moved by Goetten, seconded by Mayor Peterson, to <br />adopt Resolution #2992, granting a renewal of a lot area <br />Variance, in accordance with the guidelines set forth in <br />Resolution #2841. All voted aye. Motion passed. <br />(#9)ZONING FILE 11666-MICHAEL HILBELINK <br />2180 PROSPECT AVENUE <br />RENEWAL VARIANCE <br />This item was removed from the Consent Agenda at the request <br />of Staff (Jeanne Mabusth), on behalf of a neighboring property <br />owner, Dianne Jentilucci. <br />Bernhardson stated that the applicant applied for a renewal <br />of a lot area and side street setback Variance. The applicant <br />has submitted an amended proposal, which reduces the side street <br />setback Variance to nine feet, rather than 20 feet proposed with <br />the original application. Bernhardson advised that the Planning <br />Commission had unanimcusiy recommended approval of this <br />application. <br />Jabbour asked whether it would be appropriate to have the <br />applicant present for the oic''u'=‘»ion of this application. <br />Mabusth stated that the applicant should be given the <br />opportunity to appear before Council if it is Council's intention <br />to deny the application. <br />- 7 -