11-20-1995 Planning Commission Minutes

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON NOVEMBER 20, 1995 • ( #6 - #1958 Louis Oberhauser - Continued) Hawn said she saw the structures as clearly being in violation and hideous. Hawn said any improvement would be a benefit but was concerned with two substandard lots requiring hardcover and structural variances. She said she was willing to look at the application only because of the hideous condition of the structures. Hawn said she was very concerned with this being adequate grounds for approval and had a serious problem with it. Neveaux said the City and the property owner want the improvement. He noted that other proposals have been turned away and considered this a last ditch effort. Neveaux said in site of the numerous variances that exists on the property, the outcome would be beneficial. He felt the past should be put behind and move forward. Neveaux said the wedge of land of Casco /Spring Park was a transitional group of lots. He noted that one lot was not economically feasible and out of character with the lot and area. He felt the proposal blends in with the neighborhood. Peterson said that was not a concern. He did want the structure to come down and did want the subdivision. He felt if there was to be a replat, he recommended 2 lots. • Mabusth suggested a possible redesign questioning puting a large house within the smaller envelope. She saw no reason to grant a setback variance to lakeshore setback for Lot 1 as the building area could be rearranged to meet the setback. Mabusth said the proposal has merit but again was concerned with setbacks and the lack of any real site planning. • Peterson asked why a larger house on a smaller lot. Neveaux said it was only a general plan. He said the site and access availability was limited and looked at the aesthetics. It was the applicant's intent to eliminate the setback variance required on lot 1 but limit the other. Mabusth noted the sewer easement along the west line and the utility easement on the line. A shared access was recommended from CoRd 15. The County was in favor of the shared access also. The County saw the Dunwoody access as dangerous. Neveaux said this was fine with Oberhauser. He was asked if he was aware of the utility easement. Neveaux said he was but not necessarily to the placement of the easement Lindquist said he did not conceptually disagree but did not want to see any hardcover in the 0 -75' zone. He did not wish to see any new construction in this area. He would not approve any structural lot coverage variance or hardcover variance in the 0 -75' zone but would consider a hardcover variance. 16