Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL <br />MEETING HELD ON NOVEMBER 13, 1995 <br />( 910 - #2066 Robert and his Waade - Continued) <br />Kelley commented that the hardcover in the 75 -250' zone, while being reduced from <br />15.96% to 9.25 %, is allowed at 25 %. He was concerned with the owner's ability to add <br />hardcover in the future up to the 25% allowable. It was noted that condition #2 of the <br />resolution stipulated that the hardcover in this zone could not exceed 9.25% without <br />further approval by the Council. <br />Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. <br />( * #11) #2074 JOHN AND KRISTEN GEHRING, 1687 CONCORDIA STREET - <br />VARIANCES /CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - RESOUTION #3634 <br />Hurr moved, Goetten seconded, to adopt Resolution 93634. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. <br />( * #12) #2075 HOWARD R. ALTON III, 1635 CONCORDIA STREET - <br />CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT/VARIANCE - RESOLUTION #3635 <br />Hurr moved, Goetten seconded, to adopt Resolution #3635. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. <br />(Hun was excused from the meeting at this time.) <br />( #13) #2079 RICK PERRY, 440 WILLOW DRIVE SOUTH - VARIANCES • <br />The applicant was present. <br />Kelley asked if the amended proposal should be referred back to the Planning <br />Commission. It was decided to proceed with the review. <br />Mabusth reported that the original proposal was for a 24'x23' addition to the existing <br />garage, which is located in front of the principal structure. The original proposal <br />involved an oversized accessory structure, which exceeded the 1000 s.f allowable <br />footprint. The original variance of 1978 approved a 5' setback for the existing garage. <br />The Planning Commission did not address application's proposal to amend agreeing to <br />bring the garage addition area of structure under 1000 s.f.. The structure will be between <br />750 and 1000 s.f and would require a 15' side setback. The footprint variance is no <br />longer required. <br />Mabusth said the applicant felt that the Planning Commission did not consider his request <br />to amend the proposal. The applicant was willing to reduce the size but would still <br />require the side setback variance and variance for the intensification of the addition in <br />front of the principal structure. <br />• <br />10 <br />