Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING CONIlVIISSION <br /> Monday,July 17,2006 <br /> 6:00 o'clock p.m. <br /> ROLL <br /> � The Orono Planning Commission met on the above-mentioned date with the following members present: <br /> Acting Chair Cynthia Bremer,Commissioners Ralph Kempf,Roland Jurgens,Dick Kroeger,and . <br /> Alternate Janice Berg. Representing Staff were Planning Director Mike Gaffron,Planners Melanie Curtis <br /> and Evelyn Turner,and Recorder Jackie Young. Council Member Jim Murphy was present. ' <br /> Acting Chair Bremer called the meeting to order at 6:02 p.m: <br /> CONSENT � <br /> Item Nos. 5, 7, 9 and 13 were added to the Consent Agenda. � <br /> Bremer opened the public hearing for Applications#OS-3147,#06-3209,#06-3213, and#06-3218 at <br /> 6:03 p.m. <br /> There were no public comments regarding these applications. <br /> Bremer closed the public hearing at 6:04 p.m. � <br /> Bremer moved,Kroeger seconded,to approve the Consent Agenda as amended. VOTE: Ayes 5, <br /> Nays 0. ' <br /> OLD BUSINESS <br /> 1. #OS-3102 STONEWOOD DESIGN BUILD,920 BROWN ROAD SOUTH,VARIANCE <br /> REVISIONS,6:05 P.M.—6:21 P.M. <br /> Sven Gustafson, Stonewood Design Build, and Wendy Boettenberg,Landscape Architect. <br /> Gaffron stated the applicant is requesting a review at Staff's request and Council direction. Lot area,lot <br /> width,and left and right side setback variances were granted for the property in 2005. Since that time,the <br /> original buyer for the property elected to sell the property and a new buyer was found. The new property <br /> owner wanted a different design and the plan was revised which has resulted in a further encroachment <br /> into the side:setback than what was originally approved and a different location for those encroachments. <br /> Council reviewed the application at its June 26 meeting and recommended,due to the revisions,that the <br /> Planning Commission review this application once again. <br /> Gaffron stated while the revised plan meets the 20-foot setback,it has a greater encroachment of the side <br /> setback than the house plan that was approved and a different location for those encroachments. The <br /> applicant is requesting approval of the revised site plan. <br /> PAGE 1 <br />