10-10-1994 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

r MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMXflSSION MEETING HELD ON SEPTEMBER 19, 1994 (#l 1) Item #1962 - Prairie Rcstorations/Dayton - Continued Peterson voiced the overall basic support of Schroeder and Lindquist, who were not present but who had discussed this project with him. Concerns were of where the dirt would go, the clearwip, and the drainage and wetlands issue. Peterson would like to sn a waterfowl island, though, it is understood that this cannot be done under DNR regulations without permits. Ga£&on said that other agencies are not against islands but reqi^e a more detailed review Bowen said he was rcttoiking the island issue, and it may become part of the project Peterson nxjved, Nolan seconded, to recommend the approval of a conditional-use permit to include the above listed seven conditions, with Staff to draft a nwre detailed list of conditions. Because of such a large cooperative effort and waiting for receipt of ^ve conditions. Callahan suggested moving ahead with a preliminary hearing with the City CCTjndl. Ayes 4, Nays 0. (#12) ITEM #1963 - ENGEN A KOZOJED A ASSOCIATES, INC,yJAMES A CAMILLE FARLEY, 15 ORONO ORCHARD ROAD SiyTH - VARIANCE - PUBUCff The Affidavit of Publicat^^d Certificate of Mailing w^noted. Gaf&on said this applicatioi^request for lot width/ariance. The proposal is to remove existing house and replace withWw residence. The existing house is on a 4-5 acm lot and has less than the 30* side setbJ^. To allcviiue that problem, the appbeant wishes to remove the house and buUd a new oS^which creates a vacant lot for a ,«nod of time. The lot does not meet the 200’ lot widlft^uircment at the 50* fi-ont setback line. Gaffion also noted that this lot was not suitable fo^imrc subdivision due to sepuc Umitauons Tim Engcn, representative for Mrs. Farley, sp^on her behalf Mrs. F^ey ^d her son were also present. Engen stated he originaUy wai^d to use the present foundation but decided against that because of the setback problerakAftcr receiving the survey, it was also detennined that the driveway is on the DNR propel^ requiring reassessment. It was detennined that ihc^jot width at the garage would b^^* and 150* at the house Keith Spencer question«l the intern for another structure on th>mopcrty which is proposed to be built. wiU only be a bam-type stiucture placed rear of the driveway and was tofd there are no more buildabic sites on the prop^, precluding a second house or lot split. Nolan moved. Smith seconded, to approve Item #1963 as proposed. Ayes 4. Nays 0