My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
05-26-1987 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
1987
>
05-26-1987 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/17/2026 9:24:16 AM
Creation date
3/17/2026 9:06:13 AM
Metadata
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
546
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD MAY 11, 1987 <br />#1.120 RAGATZ CONTINUED <br />garage is not of interest to him if he cannot put on a <br />room addition later, and that is why he brought up the <br />hardcover and room addition issue at the Planning <br />Commission meeting, in order to avoid a future problem. <br />He felt Planning Commission led him to believe that <br />their recommendation was valid for an undetermined <br />amount of time. <br />Assistant `boning Administrator Gaff.ron stated Planning <br />Commission very likely did give the impression that an <br />indefinite variance was being granted based on the <br />discussions. <br />Planning Commission member Taylor recollected that in <br />exchange for moving the garage location to maintain some <br />setback, Planning Commission would approve the <br />additional hardcover needed for a future addition. He <br />noted that the length of the variance was not discussed <br />as in most cases because variances have always been <br />valid for only one year. <br />Planning Commission member Johnson agreed with Taylrr's <br />recollection, however, he noted that Mr. Ragatz made it <br />very clear the importance of a future addition. <br />Councilmember Goetten stated that variances have always <br />been valid for only one year and unfortunate that Mr. <br />Ragatz may have been lead to believe otherwise. <br />Councilmember Callahan stated that he was present at <br />that Planning Commission meeting and understr,cd why the <br />misunderstanding may have occurred but did not feel <br />Planning Commission actually made a recommendation based <br />on a time frame othor tnan one year. <br />It was moved by Councilmember Callahan, seconded by <br />Councilmember Goetten, to deny the request for a <br />permanent variance. Motion, Ayes 5, Nays 0. <br />#1124 JIM AND RUTHANNE I.ANGE <br />4160 FOREST LAKE DRIVE <br />VARIANCE <br />RESOLUTION #2.1b9 <br />RuthAnne Lange was present for this matter. <br />City Administrator Bernhardson explained the request for <br />a lot area variance tc build on a substandard .lot in a <br />sewered area. Planning Commission unanimously <br />recommended approval. <br />0 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.