04-15-1991 Planning Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

S’ '' V ..Vj m ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD APRIL 15, 1991 (#10)ZONING FILE #1618-PUCEL CONTINUED She said, "I agree with Jeff that the information that has been provided to us is insufficient in order for us to make any real determinations. I have said in the p<ast, and will reiterate, that in my opinion, access to this property first and foremost, must be solved before construction of anything can be considered. This is the first time I have heard Mr. Pucel mention his plans for the road, drainage, or sewer. I have serious questions about whether or not this property can be developed beyond a single unit. The only way I can see development occurring is under the guidelines of a PRD. However, it would have be a PRD that is in strict conformance with all other zoning regulations." Moos agreed that Mr. Pucel had not provided sufficient information, given the sensitive nature of the this property. She stated that she does not believe the property will support more than one home. Rowlette stated that construction of three additional homes on this property, with the pad size indicated by Mr. Pucel, would create more hardcover than she could approve. Hanson stated that because this property is so sensitive, he would not consider any application that will require Variances. He did say that he would consider a variation from the Code in order for the provision of adequate access. Cohan said, "I am consistent with my recommendations for denying hardcover within the 0-75’ setback area, and would continue my policy in this case. I cannot see more than one additional home on this property." Bellows explained to Mr. Pucel that the idea of a PRD is not to push the intention of any of the City's Zoning Variances or restrictions in terms of allowing someone to build something that exceeds what a property can sustain. She said, "The point of a PRD is to give a landowner some degree of latitude. It is designed to allow someone to develop a piece of property that has some unique features by clustering, or other means, that will result in a minimal impact on that site. In my opinion, Mr. Pucel, your proposal goes against the spirit of what a PRD is. You have simply taken three, very large, foot pads and put them out on a site on land. That is not the point of a PRD. You have heard very clearly from the Planning Commission that if we are to recommend approval of a PRO on this site, we would not allow any other Variances." Jabbour suggested if the property owner proceeds with development plans that the survey be confirmed before he is given approval. He stated that the southwest corner of the point continues to slide into the lake aid the survey Mr. Pucel has provided is three years old. - 14 - h ' k-- . 1