Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL <br />MEETING HELD ON NOVEMBER 13,1995 <br />(#10 • #2066 Robert and Iris Waade - Continued) <br />Kcfley 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® i without <br />further qqrroval by the CoundL <br />Vote; Ayes 5, Nays 0. <br />(*#11) #2074 JOHN AND KRISTEN GEHRING, 1687 CONCORDIA STREET <br />VARIANCES/CONDmONAL USE PERMIT - RESOUTION #3634 <br />Hurr moved, Goetten seconded, to adopt Resolution #3634. V'ote; Ayes 5, Nays 0 <br />(•#12) #2075 HOWARD R. ALTON HI, 1635 CONCORDIA STREET - <br />CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT/VARIANCE - RESOLUTION #3635 <br />Huir moved, Goetten seconded, to adopt Resolution #3635. Vote; Ayes 5. Nays 0. <br />(Hurr 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 viith 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 ot the addition in <br />front of the principal structure <br />I