Laserfiche WebLink
r � <br /> 1��IINUTES OF TI�C � <br /> ORONO CI:T�.'COUNCIL NIEETING <br /> � Mouclay,June 26,2006 �`����� <br /> 7:00 o'clock p.m. <br /> (.PUI3ZIC COMMENTS, Co�cti�r.zrcrd) . <br /> McMillan coinmented light pollution is a big issue for her personally and that there are some lights along <br /> 394 erected by Mi�/Dot that could be replaced with a better type of sliielded ligllt. McMillan stated fille <br /> priii7ary reasoii for the lights is security. McMillan encouraged Mr. Lynlan to vv�•iie to Ivfi7/Dot wiilz his <br /> concerns. <br /> Sansevere stated tlle City has been proaciive in its ap�roaclz to protecting ilie lake and that he feels the <br /> same way 1;hat Mr. Lyulan does on fihe otller issues but that ilie City is liinited in what it is aUle to <br /> acconiplish in that regard. <br /> Wliite noted outdoor advertisiiig is iiot allowed in Orono. White stated iii his view the amount of <br /> electricii,y being used and the coal being consunied to generate elecfi�•icity will becoine a niajor issue in tlie <br /> conling years. <br /> ZONING ADMIlVISTRATOR'S REPOR'fi <br /> 4. #OS-3102 STONEWOOD DESIGN BU�D,920 BROWl�ROAD SOUTH—VAR7ANCE— <br /> REVIEW REVISED PLAN . <br /> Kathy Alexander,Architect, and Sven Gustafson, Contractor,were present. <br /> Gaffron stated Staff is requesting site plan review on this a�plicatioii. Gaffroii noted the applicavts were <br /> � granted a variance in 2005 for lot width,lot area, and side setbacks. Tlie resolution that was approved by <br /> � the Council specifically referenced site plans that were reviewed by the Planning Comnussion, Gaffron <br /> stated the issue that is bringing tliis ap�licafion Uack before the City Council is whetlier further Planning <br /> Comnussion review is necessary. Gaf&oii iudicated there llave been some changes nlade to the site plan <br /> tl�at may not be in confoiniance with City Code and would require further review. <br /> Gaf&on indicated the Plamling Comnussion was very speci�c in their discussions about the locatioiz aiid <br /> amount of encroaclunent and tIie plails received this spring have some revisions. Gaffion noted there is a <br /> new ovv�ier of the�roperty suice the time this application was reviewed by the Plannulg Coinnussion, <br /> Gaffron stated there are now soine different encroachments than what was previously approved. Gaffi•on <br /> noted the neighUors are aware of the changes aizd their coirnnents llave been included in the Couizcil <br /> �acket. <br /> Gaffron requested the Council xeview the cut7 ent�lans, compare tllenz to the originally ap�roved plans, <br /> ' and review the Plaruiing Cominission iueinos and uiinutes froni 2005. Gaffron reconu�ieilded tliis <br /> a��lication Ue sent Uack to tlle Plaiuiing Coniinission for their review and comineilts. <br /> . Gustafson stated wlien tlie house was originally desi�ied,ihey were working witlz anothex client, and il�a1: <br /> . if was the arclutect's Uelief that they were working witliin the variailce approval. Gustafson staied Ms. <br /> Alexander.l�ad s�oken witli someone at the Ciiy request:ing clarification prior to proceeding forward and <br /> tl�at they believed they were iii eom�liance with tlle varianee al�proval. <br /> Peterson ii�dicated she is in agreeineiii;with Staff's reconiixleizdatioii i:o refer tlus applicatio�l Uack to tlie <br /> Plaiuiing Conunission. <br /> , <br /> ' PAGE 4 of 9 <br />