Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br />ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING <br />• Monday, June 27, 2005 <br />7:00; o'clock p.m. <br />6. #05 -3100 Larry and Sheryl Palnz,1146 Wildliurst Trail, Continued <br />Murphy moved, White seconded, to accept RESOLUTION NO. 5341 , A Resolution granting lot area and <br />lot width variances, and a conditional use permit with the provision that the four conditions have been met <br />and that screening plans for the retaining walls be subject to staff approval. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 1, Mayor <br />Peterson dissenting. 1 <br />Mayor Peterson felt the design was too much house, for the lot size. <br />7. #05 -3110 Thomas and Sheila Browne, 760 Brown Road South -Variance —Resolution No. 5342 <br />White moved, McMillan seconded, adopting RESOLUTION NO. 5342, a Resolution approving the lake <br />setback variance in order to construct a 2 "d story dormer and denying lake setback and hardcover variances <br />in order to construct a garage addition. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. <br />8. #05 -3111 Water Street Homes, LLC on be half of Randall and Sara Hogan, 2260 Fox Street - <br />Conditional Use Permit and Variances — Resolution No. 5343 <br />McMillan questioned whether the wetland calculation wag .included in the redesigned site plan. <br />� p <br />Gaffron pointed out that code does not state whetherlor not you use wetland for oversize accessory space <br />• calculations. He stated that the argument could be made that if one considers p <br />rs wetland open space, one should get <br />credit for it, but since the code is not specific and lot,�area typically does not include wetland in its overall <br />calculations it is unclear depending how you look at wetland. <br />Attorney Barrett maintained that it had been determined in a previous meeting hat the driveway veway outlot was to be <br />considered as part of the lot area. <br />Gaffron concluded that if the outlot and wetland were added together, as determined in the previous meeting, the <br />applicant would be close to meeting accessory building size restrictions. <br />McMillan suggested that item #5 in the Resolution be removed as it was redundant. <br />Murphy stated that he found the premise of this prop Isal to be interesting and encourage hoped to <br />be more creative like this applicant. p g other builders to <br />White moved, McMillan seconded, adopting RESOLUTION NO. 5343, a revised Resolution granting <br />variances and CUP for the proposed Oversized Accessory Structure, with the removal of paragraph 5 on <br />page 3. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. <br />9. #05 -3114 Peter J. Boyer on behalf of Sever and Sharon Peterson, 3145 North Shore Drive - Variances <br />— Resolution No. 5344 <br />•White moved, McMillan seconded, adopting RESOLUTION NO. 5344, a Resolution approving lot width <br />and average lakeshore setback variances, but denying the 75 -250' hardcover variance in order to construct <br />a new single family residence at 3145 North Shore Drive. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0 <br />e9 of 12 <br />