Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING <br /> Monday,Apri110,2017 <br /> 7:00 o'clock p.m. <br /> *13. #17-3908 ROMAN ZHLTK OF CUBE,INC.,3320 NAVARRE LANE,VARIANCES FOR <br /> LOT AREA,LOT WIDTH—RESOLUTION NO.6749. <br /> Crosby moved,Printup seconded,to adopt Resolution No. 6749,a Resolution Granting Variances <br /> to Orono Municipal Zoning Code Section 78-350 for Property Located at 3320 Navarre Lane. <br /> VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 0. <br /> *14. #17-3909 KEN AND SHERALYN SADDLER,2755 ETHEL AVENUE,VARIANCES FOR <br /> LOT AREA AND LOT WIDTH—RESOLUTION NO. 6750. <br /> Crosby moved,Printup seconded,to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 6750,a Resolution Granting <br /> Variances to Orono Municipal Zoning Code Section 78-350 for Property Located at 2755 Ethel <br /> Avenue,File No.3909. VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 0. <br /> 15. #17-3912 BRUCE BIRKELAND, 1298 WILDHURST TRAIL AND LOT 3,BLOCK <br /> WILDHURST,VARIANCES <br /> Curtis stated the applicant owns three lots of Wildhurst Trail. Two of the lots are the subject of this <br /> application. Currently Lot 2, located at 1298 Wildhurst Trail, is a lakeshore lot and the unaddressed Lot 3 <br /> is a non-lakeshore lot. An application for a subdivision exemption was submitted to permit an <br /> administrative lot line rearrangement between the two properties in order to reconfigure Lot 3 as a <br /> lakeshore lot. <br /> Based on the information provided,there does not appear to be sufficient width at the ordinary high water <br /> level and at the 75-foot setback as required by the Code to support the new lake lot. Further,the existing <br /> home on Lot 2 reduces options and will likely require a side setback variance. New nonconforxnities are <br /> not to be created. Therefore,variances are necessary to process the lot line adjustment. <br /> The Planning Commission held a public hearing at their March meeting and reviewed the application. <br /> The Planning Commission felt the request was reasonable but they struggled with the lack of practical <br /> diff'iculty as needed to support the variance. The Planning Commission voted 5-0 to recommend denial. <br /> The Commission further recommended the applicant provide additional practical difficulties analysis <br /> supporting their request. <br /> Comments from the public were received regarding this application and have been included as an exhibit <br /> to the Planning Commission report. Additional comments were made at the meeting and the minutes of <br /> the Planning Commission meeting provide more detail on those comments. <br /> Page 9 of 26 <br />