Laserfiche WebLink
1VIIlVUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION <br /> Monday,May 21,2007 <br /> 6:00 o'clock p.m. <br /> (#07-3286 Craig Olson,Continued) <br /> Olson indicated he is fine with removing the pea rock and plastic. <br /> Kempf recommended that side of the house have gutters and downspouts installed. <br /> Olson stated he would. <br /> Kempf stated it does not appear that any hardcover can be removed from the driveway. <br /> Kroeger stated the proposal seems reasonable and that human activity has been pulled back away from the <br /> bluff with this proposal. Kroeger stated the removal of the pea rock and the plastic would also be an <br /> improvement. <br /> Kempf moved to recommend approval of Application#07-3286,Craig Olson,4775 North Shore <br /> Drive,granting of a 75-250 hardcover variance,a bluff setback variance of 18 feet,and a rear yard <br /> setback variance in order to construct a new covered entry and lakeside deck to the home. <br /> Curtis recommended the hardcover numbers be verified. <br /> Kempf amended his motion to require that the hardcover calculations be verified to reflect the plan <br /> as presented,and the granting of a rear yard setback to allow for the new entry addition with the <br /> understanding that the plastic and pea rock will be removed,subject to the City Engineer <br /> evaluating the landscaping on the adjacent lot. Winer seconded. VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 0. <br /> 5. #07-3290 DRK FAMLY ASSOCIATES,2523 KELLY AVENUE,VARIANCE <br /> This application follows Item No. 8. <br /> *6. #07-3291 EKHOLM,2606 WEST LAFAYETTE ROAD,VARIANCE <br /> Kempf moved,Rice seconded,to recommend approval of Application#07-3291,Elkholm,2606 <br /> West LaFayette road,granting of hardcover variances in order to construct an addition to the <br /> egisting home. VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 0. <br /> SKETCH PLAN <br /> 7. #07-3287 THOMAS WEBBER,3559 LYRIC AVENUE,SKETCH PLAN <br /> Gaffron stated this sketch plan would be a Class II Subdivision if it proceeds forward. The applicant is <br /> proposing to divide in half his currently nonconfornung lot to create two even more nonconforming lots. <br /> The applicant was advised by Staff that this is not feasible,but the applicant has chosen to make a sketch <br /> plan application. The City Attorney has advised that in order to preserve the applicant's due process <br /> rights,the City must review the application,even if denial is virtually a foregone conclusion based on the <br /> PAGE 7 <br />