Laserfiche WebLink
• <br />• <br />MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION <br />MEETING HELD ON AUGUST 21, 1995 <br />( #2 - #2052 Doug Sams - Continued) <br />Lindquist said the applicant should submit an amended grading plan. The Planning <br />Commission should also receive feedback from the Engineer on the grading and the <br />situation with the neighbors. <br />Mabusth said another neighbor has called about drainage problems too. <br />It was decided that too much information was missing at this time. <br />It was noted that erosion control efforts have been made with silt fencing. <br />Lindquist moved, Smith seconded, to table Application #2052 to allow the applicant to <br />hire a consultant for a detailed grading plan and for meeting with the Engineer on the <br />drainage situation. Ayes b, Nays 0. <br />ACTION ITEMS <br />( 0) #2036 ROBERT J. GOUNTANIS, 1098 LOMA LINDA AVENUE - <br />VARIANCES - REFERRED BACK TO PLANNING COMMISSION FOR <br />FURTHER CONSIDERATION - 7:13 -7 :55 P.M. <br />Mr. Gountanis was present and had asked the application be referred back to the Planning <br />Commission for further consideration. There was a question regarding the original plan <br />and it's approval regarding a second story elevation above the garage, which was not seen <br />or discussed. The applicant provided the floor plan, which includes two bedrooms with <br />closets and two bathrooms with a hallway and door into a large room planned to be used <br />as a game room. This second story will be accessed from a stairway. <br />Peterson remarked that the approval was for the residence to be within the same footprint <br />with no further expansion. The lot is very small, which would create problems with any <br />expansion. Lindquist and Smith agreed that a second story to the garage would be too <br />massive for the property. <br />Gountanis responded that approval had been recommended for case #3 involving new <br />construction instead of repair within the same footprint and a maximum lot coverage of <br />1500 s.f. The house structure is 2 -story, and the 22x22' garage is an addition. Gountanis <br />said the setback was defined by the horizontal and not by height. He had thought a 2- <br />story garage was approved and noted no condition made on the height of the structure. <br />The statistics of the lot and variances were restated, and the three case options were <br />reviewed for clarification and refreshment. It was noted that the elevations did show a 2- <br />• story garage but approval did not include the same. The lack of detail in the floor plans <br />was also brought to the attention of the applicant. <br />4 <br />