My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
10-13-1986 Council Minutes
Orono
>
City Council
>
Minutes
>
1980-1989
>
1986
>
10-13-1986 Council Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/21/2012 2:30:43 PM
Creation date
8/21/2012 2:30:43 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
17
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 OCTOBER 13, 1986 <br />#1068 NELSON CONTINUED <br />Councilmember Frahm stated that because of the apparent <br />"attached second dwelling ", he recommended that approval <br />be conditioned upon the property maintaining two acre <br />minimum in order to support the two - family dwelling. <br />it was moved by Councilmember Frahm, seconded by Mayor <br />Butler, to adopt Resolution #2061 amending it as <br />outlined by Councilmember Frahm above. Motion, Ayes 2, <br />Nays 1. Councilmember Callahan voted nay. <br />Tennis Court Issue - City Administrator Bernhardson <br />reported that construction of a tennis court on Mr. <br />Nelson's property was red tagged by the Building Dept. <br />today. He stated that a significant amount of <br />alteration beyond 100 cubic yards was being done which <br />required a conditional use permit from the Council. <br />Dr. Nelson explained the circumstances that led up to <br />construction of the tennis court. He noted that because <br />of the new addition, they decided if they were ever to <br />construct a tennis court, it should be done now before <br />the asphalt for the new driveway is installed. He <br />stated that his architect checked with City staff <br />regarding the requirements and apparently misunderstood <br />the need for a grading permit, although he was aware <br />that there were additional requirements to be met for <br />the tennis court fence. He stated that they intend to <br />meet all requirements necessary however the time limit <br />involved is a major issue. <br />Assistant Zoning Administrator Gaffron explained the <br />slope and retaining wall area. He noted that they <br />propose a 10' fence whereas only a 3 -1/2' fence is <br />allowed and that although it was not within the 75' <br />lakeshore setback, it did not meet the average lakeshore <br />setback, however this would not affect the adjacent <br />neighbors because it was not within their view. He <br />stated that he talked to the tennis court contractor the <br />previous week and indicated that staff would grant him a <br />grading permit on the staff review basis subject to <br />submitting a reasonable grading plan and then proceed <br />with applying for a variance for the fence, however the <br />grading being done was more extensive than indicated by <br />the contractor. <br />Attorney Barrett stated that for a conditional use <br />permit, the Council has the authority to waive referral <br />of the application to the Planning Commission. <br />3 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.