Laserfiche WebLink
MI NUTI: ; OF THE REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEj:TI N(; III:LI) MAY 21l , 1985. PAGL 4 <br />Acting Mayor Frahm advised Asp)und that after the patios are <br />removed, that the ground should be sodded. <br />Councilmember L. Adams noted that he has a prob- -,m approving <br />anything in the 0-75' setback area. <br />Councilmember L. Adams moveJ, Acting Mayor Frahm seconded, <br />to adopt Resolution 11768, A Resolution denying varx,%ncps <br />for the fence and patio concrete request with a deadline date <br />for removal of patios for June 15, 1985, for 3424 Eastlake <br />Street and July 23, 1985, for 3444 Eastlake Street and the <br />request for deck platform and screened porch to be referred <br />to the Planning Commission for their review. Motion, Ayes <br />(2), Nays (1). <br />Councilmember T. Adams voted nay. <br />1897 CHUCK PETERSON <br />825 OLD LONG LAKE ROAD <br />PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION <br />Chuck Peterson was present. Assistant Zoning Adminis•- <br />trator Gaffron stated that the surveyor reconf irmed the dry <br />buildable area that Council requested at the last meeting. <br />Gaffron confirmed that there is 2.0 acres of dry buildable <br />per lot in the area identified strictly as a seasonal <br />drainageway. <br />Councilmember T. Adams moved, Councilmember L. Adams <br />seconded, to approve the preliminary subdivision <br />application of ''puck Peterson. Motion, Ayes (3) , Nays (0) . <br />1903 ARD FERRELI. <br />DWATERTOWN ROAD <br />ZONING APPEAI. Mr. and Ctrs. Ward Ferrell were present. Assistant Zoning <br />Administrator Gaffron explained that the applicant wrs <br />brought in under a zoning appeal in order to save the <br />applicant some money. Gaffron explained that if the <br />applicant had applied for a variance that the application <br />would be more costly and with the Council's past precedents <br />the Council would probably have denied the application. <br />City Attorney Radio asked how much the full variance <br />appli-ration would have cost. Radio noted that by allowing <br />this applicant the appeal.; procedure the City is saving the <br />applicant money, but by handling this matter the City is not <br />treating this application as a variance and not using the <br />same standards. Radio noted that the decision reached <br />tonight does not presume that the same decision would b- <br />reached on a formal variance application. <br />Assistant. Zoning Administrator Gaffron stated tha <br />variance application would be $150, plus the appli, <br />expense for additional surveying work, plus the _a <br />expense for septic test i ng for cacti lot. Gaffron est Amated <br />