My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
C.C. minutes-8/10/98-marina licenses
Orono
>
Property Files
>
Street Address
>
N
>
North Shore Drive
>
3324 North Shore Drive - 08-117-23-41-0012/21 and 44/0005
>
Misc
>
C.C. minutes-8/10/98-marina licenses
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/22/2023 5:47:07 PM
Creation date
11/15/2017 10:31:43 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
x Address Old
House Number
3324
Street Name
North Shore
Street Type
Drive
Address
3324 North Shore Dr
Document Type
Misc
PIN
0811723410021
Supplemental fields
ProcessedPID
Updated
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
7
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).
View images
View plain text
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING <br /> MINUTES FOR AUGUST 10, 1998 <br /> (#7) 1998 MARINA LICENSES-continued <br /> Mayor Jabbour stated that a permit would be required for a fence and a survey would be required <br /> with the application. <br /> Gaffron suggested that the lot line be staked by the surveyor for either Waade or Dunn, with the <br /> other party agreeing to the location. If there is disagreement,the surveyors will need to determine <br /> the correct lot line. <br /> Dunn noted that the existing stakes were placed by his surveyor. <br /> Mayor Jabbour suggested that Council approve the marina license for Lakeside Marina with some <br /> of the conditions discussed. He indicated that pazking and trespassing issues may be ongoing <br /> problems, and should be addressed with staff and the police. <br /> Waade asked for a deadline date for completion of the fence. <br /> Kelley commented that the fence should be constructed within the City standards. He did not favor <br /> an 8'fence and would like to see it as low as possible. <br /> Mayor Jabbour suggested that Waade and Dunn continue to work on a berm even though other <br /> conditions may be agreed upon. <br /> Ga�on asked for clarity from Council on the height of the fence and how close to the lake and road <br /> it should be constructed. If a fence is not allowed in the 0-75'zone,this may not solve the trespass <br /> issue. He noted that Council approved a fence for the DNR and felt it may be acceptable for <br /> commercial property to have a fence to the lake to protect both properties. Jabbour agreed. Kelley <br /> was opposed to a fence in the 0-75'zone. <br /> Goetten asked about plantings to the lake rather than a fence. Ga�on responded that there were two <br /> issues. One is screening because of the visual view from a residential to commercial property. The <br /> other issue is trespassing. An 8'high screen fence solves both issues. A 6'high fence that doesn't <br /> go all the way to each end would help the screening but doesn't solve the trespassing issue. Goetten <br /> indicated she would support whatever was best for both property owners. <br /> Gaf&on suggested a 6' fence between the 75' lake setback and the 30' street setback line, and from . <br /> there a height that would prohibit people from walking between the properties. The lower height <br /> would not provide screening or visible encroachment. <br /> 9 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.