Laserfiche WebLink
' MINUTES OF THE <br /> � ORONO CITY COUNC�MEETING � <br /> ' Monda�,October 10, 2005 � - <br /> 7:00 o'clock p.m. � <br /> (#05-3136 Troy Broitzman, Continued) <br /> footage of 12,014 square feet of livable space plus a 1,683.9 square foot attached garage. With this <br /> revision,the applicant has indicated that by reducing the size of the footpriilt and removing the two-sided <br /> walkout,the pro�osed site gradiiig will be reduced. <br /> Curtis noted the driveway has been relocated off of Heritage Drive and the parking area on the west is <br /> now located approximately 21 feet from the side lot line,which allo�vs for the appropriate screening. <br /> The Platu�ing Cominission voted 3-4 to reconunend approval of the lot width variance and to recommend � <br /> approval of the conditional use peiznit based on the previous plans. Tkus motion failed. A second motion <br /> to approve the lot width variance and to deny the conditional use permit was made and passed 4-3. <br /> The applicant has revised the floor plans and elevation views of the proposed hoine. The applicant has <br /> indicated that the proposed site grading will be reduced from the previous plan. If Council is satisfied ' <br /> with the revised plans,the applicant should be directed to provide a revised survey reflecting the plans � . <br /> along with a revised grading and drainage plan. The City Engineer should review this plan prior to final � <br /> variance and conditional use penilit a��rovals. . <br /> Since the Planning Commission reconunended denial of the previous plan, Staff would recommend the � � ' <br /> Council refer these revisioils back to the Planning Conunission for their review. Additionally, Staff � �. . � <br /> would recorninend that in order to allow ample time for tlie city engineer to review the revisions,the . . • . <br /> application should be referred to the November 2151 Planning Corrunission meeting. If the Council is • <br /> coinfortable with the revisions of the house plans and wishes to grant approvals without referring this <br /> application back to the Planning Commission, Staff would recommend the City Engineer be given time to <br /> review the revisions in the survey, grading and drainage plans prior to the gxanting of final a�provals. . � <br /> Sansevere stated he is in support of Staff's reconunendation to refer this ap�lication back to the Planning . . .� <br /> Conlmission pending review by t11e City Engineer. . <br /> White inquired whether the amount of excavation on the site has been reduced at all. . � � � ' :� <br /> Curtis stated the applicant has indicated it has been substantially reduced with the revisions. Curtis stated . � � � <br /> Staff has not seen formalized plans showing the reduction. • . <br /> - White stated he lilces the access off of Heritage Drive. White inquired about the average lakeshore � . � <br /> setbacic. � <br /> Gaffron demonstrated where the average lakeshore setbacic would be located on this lot. Gaffron stated• • <br /> the c�uestion becomes whether it is reasonable to use the next propei-ty over as the average lakeshore , ' <br /> setbacl:. Gaffron stated there appears to be minimal impact on the lake views of the adj oining property ' � <br /> o��rners. • � ' <br /> �'eterson concui-red that this ap�lication sl�ould be sent Uacic to the P1amlin�Gommission. Peterson�� <br /> inquired whether both walkouts have been eliminated. <br /> ����. �� � <br />