My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
02-27-1989 Council Minutes
Orono
>
City Council
>
Minutes
>
Historical
>
1980-1989
>
1989
>
02-27-1989 Council Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/5/2012 11:46:12 AM
Creation date
9/5/2012 11:46:12 AM
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 ORONO COUNCIL MEETING OF FEBRUARY 27, 1989 <br />#1369 CHARLES KICKHAFER • <br />1040 TOWNLINE ROAD <br />VARIANCE <br />RESOLUTION #2583 <br />Mr. Kickhafer was present for this matter. <br />City Administrator Bernhardson briefly explained that this <br />application involved a front yard setback variance for the <br />purposes of constructing an attached garage. The required <br />setback is 100', the applicant is proposing 701. <br />There were no questions on behalf of the applicant, or the <br />Council. <br />It was moved by Mayor Grabek, seconded by Councilmember <br />Peterson, to adopt Resolution #2583, approving the 30' front yard <br />setback variance for Charles Kickhafer. Motion, Ayes =5, Nays =O, <br />Motion passed. <br />PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE <br />City Administrator Bernhardson reported that he had <br />discussed this matter individually with each Councilmember and <br />Mayor Grabek, with the exception of Councilmember Goetten. There <br />were other issues that he was bringing forth that had not <br />previously been addressed. The Planned Development Ordinance <br />would basically not allow property to be rezoned until a specific • <br />development request is submitted for a specific property. The <br />issue of future councils was addressed, as was changes to <br />approved planned developments and undeveloped planned <br />developments. The burden of proof would fall to some degree upon <br />the council to show that any specified requirements of the <br />subdivision are related directly to the development. With a <br />Planned Development zoning, the burden of proof would fall on the <br />proponent to prove that the overall development is an <br />improvement. <br />Bernhardson explained that he had received a letter from a <br />realtor expressing concern about property development and <br />movement in the Highway 12 area. One of the main concerns is <br />where the planned development would be applied. It was <br />Bernhardson's belief that it should start off being limited to <br />the Highway 12 area because that is the area for which the <br />planned development was designed. <br />Mayor Grabek commented that he found a bit more insight into <br />the approach and now felt more comfortable about the concept of <br />planned development. He concurred with Bernhardson that a <br />planned development ordinance should be initiated in the Highway <br />12 area. <br />It was moved by Mayor Grabek, seconded by Councilmember <br />Goetten, to table this item until the March 13, 1989 Council • <br />Meeting. Motion, Ayes =5, Nays =O, Motion passed. <br />3 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.