My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
01-26-1998 Council Minutes
Orono
>
City Council
>
1998
>
01-26-1998 Council Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/26/2012 4:09:54 PM
Creation date
9/26/2012 4:09:54 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
32
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 CITY COUNCIL <br />MEETING HELD ON JANUARY 26, 1998 <br />• ( #9 - #2319 Ron Lauer - Continued) <br />Ron Lauer reported that the problem with moving the house back on the property was <br />due to the existing hill. <br />Jabbour asked for grades and elevations. He was informed that the elevation at lakeside <br />is 930' and 940' at the top of the bank. The property is then flat by the building pad and <br />goes uphill to 985' elevation. <br />Schmidt said the other neighboring home sites differ from this property. This lot requires <br />the driveway and house to be pushed more into the 75 -250' setback zone. It is a long and <br />narrow lot. A problem would be created for lake views if the house was moved back <br />further on the back. <br />Gaffron informed Jabbour that the functional width of the lot is 111' with 125' at lakeside <br />and required width of 140'. <br />Jabbour noted that when the Shoreland Ordinance was adopted, the City was asked to <br />adopt hardcover regulations up to the 500' setback. The City felt this would result in <br />clustering of building and decide to split the zone into two. Gaffron acknowledged that <br />the City's philosophy differed from that of the DNR. Jabbour said he feels the zone split <br />gives a mixed message to the Planning Commission. If the zone was 75 -500', a more <br />• massive house would have been allowed. This results in the need to make other <br />considerations for long and narrow lots. <br />Goetten said the steepness of the hill creates the hardship. <br />Jabbour said building a small home on this lot could not be justified. <br />Mrs. Edmunds, 1030 Tonkawa, said she is 100% in favor of the house placement. She is <br />happy to see the hardcover from the pool being removed. She would be concerned with <br />drainage if building was moved back into the hillside. Edmunds stated her architect built <br />in swales to accommodate the drainage and would like drainage to remain as it exists. <br />Robert Edmunds said he was at the Planning Commission meeting. A relevant point <br />made at that time was that the property is a prime building lot and requires a substantial <br />house to be built on the expensive real estate. Assuming ecological reasons for the <br />ordinance, Edmunds said the plan includes reducing the current hardcover and saving the <br />hill as being ecological reasons. He feels this is preferable to changing drainage patterns <br />and building retaining walls. <br />Mr. Buxton said the revised plan allows for the driveway to be moved back. He would <br />like to see the woodland preserved. With the long driveway, there is a need for parking. <br />He is concerned with the loss of trees, sight lines, and the ability to use the existing <br />driveway. <br />11 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.