04-16-2001 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

I . MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON APRIL 21.1997 ^ #2221 Josq>h Vochko - Continued) Mr. VoctiltQsS^^ boulder wall was required for erosion control. He had thought contractor ha^^e^ained the necessary permits. There had originally been a railroad lie wall. He did nolwisMo replace the same type of wall or block type as they would require geo-grid material. Tlmlx^lders will follow the lerrain of the hillside to produce a natural look for the purpose of stafetti^g the hill. The applicant said he plans on adding low bushes. The Building Inspcctwitd City En^necr came out to the site and ask^ his engineering consultant to anchor ai^%Quldcrs that might require additional stabilization. There were no public comments. Smith questioned whether the hill would still erode. Schroedcr noted that engineers will generally not approve boume^^Us. The applicant indicated that the hill as >icwcd by the Commissioners wa^n^s planned as the work had been stopped in mid construction. Ho noted he plans on addiii^^^ar chips and vegetation. Lindquist moved, Schroeder seconded, to approve the after-the-fact variance and CUP subject to conditions #1-5. Vote: Ayes 7, Nays 0. (US) #2225 JOHN TUEOB.ALD, 4101IIIGHWOOD ROAD - VARIANCES - PUBLIC HEARING 9:08-9:10 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. The Applicant was present along with architect, Stu lloam. Gaffion reported that the application w as a request for variance renewal for construction of a new residence to replace the existing residence. The variances previously granted and being requested are for street setback (25’ where 30' is required), west side setback (9.5* ^ where 10 is required), and cast side setback (6 ’ where lO* is required). Lot area variance is required from the 1 acre minmium for the 8550 s.f proper^. The lot width is 46-50* where 140 ’ is the standard, A variance to allow 75-25(7 hardcover of 1956 s.f or 40% is requested where 1220 s.f or 25% is normally allowed. There arc no changes to the appUcation. Gaffiron indicated Staff is continuing to work with the applicant regarding drainage on the property. Hoam indicated the previous resolution asked for a grading plan which the applicant still intends to provide. There were no pubUc comments.