Project Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINDTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, June 26, 2006 7:00 o'clock p.m. (PUBLIC COMMENTS, Continued) McMillan co1mnented light pollution is a big issue for her personally and that there are some lights along 394 erected by Mn/Dot that could be replaced with a better type of shielded light. McMillan stated the primary reason for the lights is security. McMillan encouraged Mr. Lyman to write to Mn/Dot with his concerns. Sansevere stated the City has been proactive in its approach to protecting the lake and that he feels the same way that Mr. Lyman does on the other issues but that the City is limited in what it is able to accomplish in that regard. White noted outdoor advertising is not allowed in Orono. White stated in his view the amount of electricity being used and the coal being consumed to generate electricity will become a major issue in the coming years. ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT 4. #05-3102 STONEWOOD DESIGN BUILD, 920 BROWN ROAD SOUTH -VARIANCE - REVIEW REVISED PLAN Kathy Alexander, Architect, and Sven Gustafson, Contractor, were present. Gaffron stated Staff is requesting site plan review on this application. Gaf:fron noted the applicants were granted a variance in 2005 for lot width, lot area, and side setbacks. The resolution that was approved by the Council specifically referenced site plans that were reviewed by the Planning Conmrission. Gaf:fron stated the issue that is bringing this application back before the City Council is whether fmiher Planning Commission review is necessary. Gaf:fron indicated there have been some changes made to the site plan that may not be in confo1mance with City Code and would require further review. Gaf:fron indicated the Plam1ing Commission was very specific in their discussions about the location and amount of encroachment and the plans received this spring have some revisions. Gaffron noted there is a new owner of the property since the time this application was reviewed by the Planning Co1mnission. Gaffron stated there are now some different encroachments than what was previously approved. Gaf:fron noted the neighbors are aware of the changes and their cmmnents have been included in the Council packet. Gaf:fron requested the Council review the cmTent plans, compare them to the originally approved plans, and review the Planning Commission memos and minutes from 2005. Gaffron reconnnended this application be sent back to the Pla1ming Commission for their review and comments. Gustafson stated when the house was originally designed, they were working with another client, and that it was the architect's belief that they were working within the variance approval. Gustafson stated Ms. Alexander had spoken with someone at the City requesting clarification prior to proceeding forward and that they believed they were in compliance with the variance approval. Peterson indicated she is in agreement with Staffs recommendation to refer this application back to the Planning Commission. PAGE4 of9