Laserfiche WebLink
ROLL <br />MINUTES OF THE <br />ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION <br />Monday, July 17, 2006 <br />6:00 o'clock p.m. <br />The Orono Planning Commission met on the above-mentioned date with the following members present: <br />Acting Chair Cynthia Bremer, Commissioners Ralph Kempf, Roland Jurgens, Dick Kroeger, and <br />Alternate Janice Berg. Representing Staff were Planning Director Mike Gaffron, Planners Melanie Curtis <br />and Evelyn Turner, and Recorder Jackie Young. Council Member Jim Murphy was present. <br />Acting Chair Bremer called the meeting to order at 6:02 p.m. <br />CONSENT <br />Item Nos. 5, 7, 9 and 13 were added to the Consent Agenda. <br />Bremer opened the public hearing for Applications #05-3147, #06-3209, #06-3213, and #06-3218 at <br />6:03 p.m. <br />There were no public comments regarding these applications. <br />Bremer closed the public hearing at 6:04 p.m. <br />Bremer moved, Kroeger seconded, to approve the Consent Agenda as amended. VOTE: Ayes 5, <br />Nays 0. <br />OLD BUSINESS <br />1. #05-3102 STONEWOOD DESIGN BUILD, 920 BROWN ROAD SOUTH, VARIAN CE <br />REVISIONS, 6:05 P.M. -6:21 P.M. <br />Sven Gustafson, Stonewood Design Build, and Wendy Boettenberg, Landscape Architect. <br />Gaffron stated the applicant is requesting a review at Staffs request and Council direction. Lot area, lot <br />width, and left and right side setback variances were granted for the property in 2005. Since that time, the <br />original buyer for the property elected to sell the property and a new buyer was found. The new property <br />owner wanted a different design and the plan was revised which has resulted in a further encroachment <br />into the side, setback than what was originally approved and a different location for those encroachments. <br />Council reviewed the application at its June 26 meeting and recommended, due to the revisions, that the <br />Planning Commission review this application once again. <br />Gaffron stated while the revised plan meets the 20-foot setback, it has a greater encroachment of the side <br />setback than the house plan that was approved and a different location for those encroachments. The <br />applicant is requesting approval of the revised site plan. <br />PAGEl