Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE ORONO COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 11, 1989 <br />ZONING FILE #1289-WILL CONTINUED <br />Counci lmember Callahan said that the road, regardless cf <br />where the cul.-de-sac is located, ought to go to the northern <br />boundary line of Lcts 1, 2, and 3. <br />It was moved by Ccur.cilrrember Callahan, seconded by Mayor <br />Grabek, to direct staff to prepare an ordinance in a,cordance <br />with the opinion of the City Attorney, which wi 1 1 require land <br />owners in the position of the Wear Subdivision ownership to <br />provide access to adjoining land owners and following such <br />preparation and in conjunction with it, the preliminary <br />subdivision be brcught back fcr review, and is therefore tatled <br />at this time. Motion, Ayes=', Goetter, hay, Moticn passed. <br />#1445 GREGORY C. PETERSON <br />1355 ARBOR STREET <br />VARIANCE/CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT <br />FURTHER CLARIFICATION OF COUNCIL'S RECOMMENDATION <br />Mr. and Mrs. Peterscn were present for this matte:-. <br />City Administrator EernharJsor summarized the events leadinq <br />to this reconsideraticn of variance approvals. Bernhardson said <br />that the Public Wcrks Directcr has denied the appiicant's request <br />to keep the fence in its present location in the right-of-way. <br />Zoning Administrator Yabusth said that this is a two part <br />application; the appeal of the administrative decision <br />disallowing the fence to be located in the right-of-way and the <br />height variance for the fence located within the 50' rear yard <br />setback area. <br />Mr. Peterscn explained that he had indicated that he would <br />be installing a 6' fence and that was part of the buildinq permit <br />application for the pool and the porch. Fe said that they had <br />indicated at the Planning Commission Meeting that they intended <br />to replace the existing fence. Mr. Peterscn said that they made <br />the same representations when they met with the Council. He said <br />that he is shocked to be back before the Council because he <br />thought he had covered everything the City required. He said <br />that he had all along asked the City Staff if there was anything <br />missing from their application. Mr. Peterson said that the <br />Resolution only refers to the fence in one paragraph, but the <br />fencing was part of the application from the very beginning. <br />Mrs. Peterson said that she distinctly remembered talking of <br />replacing the existing fence at the Planning Commission Meeting. <br />Councilmember Goetten read a <br />portion <br />of the Planning <br />Commission minutes from <br />that meeting. <br />Goetten <br />also recollected <br />the discussion that took <br />place at the Council <br />Meeting regarding <br />this matter. Goetten <br />said that <br />she did <br />not telieve any <br />discussion took place <br />regarding a <br />fence under 6' around the <br />property. <br />Mr. Peterscn said that this was a terminology issue. He <br />F <br />