Laserfiche WebLink
1 <br />MINUTES OP ORONO COUNCIL MEETING OF FEBRUARY 12, 1990 <br />CONCEPTUAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN CONTINUED <br />Council to plan for the future of the entire City. She said that <br />the Council would not do anything without properly notifying <br />those that would be affected. Goetten said the Council <br />appreciates the 5-acre zone and would like to keep it as is. <br />However, the Council cannot prevent people from coming into the <br />City, purchasing and subdividing property. The Council has to <br />plan for that. Goetten said that she welcomed the comments being <br />brought forth this evening. <br />It was moved by Mayor Grabek, seconded by Nettles, to table <br />this matter and direct staff to notify all affected property <br />owners if there is any further action on the transportation plan. <br />Motion, Ayes-3, Nay-0, Motion passed. <br />#1470 DAN & RUTH PARTEN <br />4300 BAYSIDE ROAD <br />PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION <br />It was moved by Mayor Grabek, seconded by CounciImember <br />Nettles, to table application #1470, as requested by Mr. Parten. <br />Motion, Ayes-3, Nays-0, Motion passed. <br />#1473 JACQUBLYNN KELLY ^ <br />2056 SHADYWOOD ROAD <br />AFTER-THE-FACT VARIANCES <br />Ms. Jacquelynn Kelly, Mr. James Klein, Mr. Stuart Bear, <br />Attorney for the "app1icant and Mr. Dennis Johnson were present <br />for the review of this application. <br />City Administrator Bernhardson provided a brief explanation <br />of this request for after-the-fact variances. <br />Mayor Grabek asked the applicant why work had continued <br />after the Citv had issued a stop work order? <br />Mr. Johnson replied that due to winter coming, work <br />continued so that the lumber would not be laying on the ground. <br />Counci Imember Goetten noted that the stop work order was <br />issued in September, which she did not consider to be wi.nter. <br />Mr. Johnson said that his client has complied with the <br />recommendations of the Planning Commission. They have removed <br />the portions of the deck extending into the 0-75' setback area. <br />The neighbors on each side of Ms. Kelly have no objections to the <br />deck as long as there is nothing built on top of it. Mr. Johnson <br />said that Mr. Bear would be preparing a document that would place <br />future land owners on notice that nothing further could be done <br />to the deck. Mr. Johnson noted that the portion of the deck that <br />extends into average lakeshore setback is lower than the pre­ <br />existing deck. <br />Mr. Bear said that it is the intent of the applicants to <br />bring the deck into conformance with the 10’ side setback.