Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD OCTOBER 26, 1987 <br />#1168 HELSTROM CONTINUED <br />Because Council voiced concerns with the proposal, <br />Councilmembers Sime and Peterson withdrew their previous <br />motion. <br />It was moved by Councilmember Sime, seconded by <br />Councilmember Goetten, to postpone this matter until the <br />end of the meeting for applicant or representative to be <br />present. <br />Deferring this matter until the end of the meeting <br />(9:34) and no presence of the applicant or <br />representative, it was moved by Mayor Grabek, seconded <br />by Councilmember Goetten, to table this matter until <br />applicant /representative can be present and direct staff <br />to review the play yard area. Motion, Ayes 5, Nays 0. <br />#1177 TODD WATERS <br />3061 CASCO POINT ROAD <br />AFTER -THE -FACT CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT <br />AND VARIANCE <br />Acting City Administrator Gerhardson explained the <br />request for an after - the -fact conditional use permit and <br />variance for unapproved land alteration within the 0 -75' <br />setback area involving the excavations for a partial <br />lakeside walkout, major alteration of lakeshore yard up <br />to within 5 -10' of lakeshore and major alteration of <br />both the 0 -75' lakeshore protected area and 75 -250' <br />setback area in excess of 100 cubic yards involving <br />changes in drainage for a 5+ acre watershed that would <br />not be covered under customary /usual grading allowed <br />under building permit. Planning Commission recommended <br />denial and complete restoration to the original <br />elevations, with the drainage being treated as before <br />with an underground tile. <br />Todd Waters and Dori Molitor- Waters were present for <br />this matter. Todd Waters introduced their Attorney, <br />David Davenport, and Engineer Consultant, Greg <br />Kopischke. Todd Waters reviewed the background of the <br />project, their plans and intention noting that it was <br />never their intention to do something not allowed and <br />they tried to follow the City codes and procedures, <br />while trying to solve a drainage problem. <br />Attorney David Davenport explained at great length the <br />following three alternatives including the advantages <br />and disadvantages of each: <br />I - Deny CUP and require total restoration of <br />original site grade with elimination of walkout <br />noting that. this could cost the applicant <br />approximately $63,000 for restoration and decrease <br />in home value because of loss of walkout. <br />4 <br />