03-20-1995 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR FEBRUARY 22, 1995 («) #1992 JAMES AND JOANN JUNDT, 1420 BRACKETTS POLNT ROAD - CONDITIONAL USE PERMITA^ARIANCES - PUBLIC HEARING - 8:01-8:40 P.M. Scott Crawford of Kraus Anderson represented the applicants. Mabusth reviewed the application noting this property has been before the Planning Commission for review several times. She explained the need for variances for the structural repair of a greenhouse and existing garage and a variance and conditional use permit for the repair of retaining walls that suppon an underground opening into the greenhouse located in the 0-75' setback area. The comprehensive improvements application also involves the reinstallation of 6 ’ high brick walls along the side lot line and along the front street setback. The walls are 50+’ from the street yard meeting the required setback Another issue is a paved path located in the 0-75' setback area that was not calculated in the original hardcover review. The applicant has installed a 4' path instead of the 8' path and this request has also been included in current application. On the original plans there was also a 12' grassed access drive that was to have an underliner of gravel to be covered with grass, which would not be considered hardcover. A 10' paved path has been installed instead which now adds hardcover in the 0-75' zone and requires variance approval. Peterson questioned how the applicants could be a!.<jwed to install the path in the 0-75 zone when it was not approved on the original plan. Crawford commented that the path was installed in the "heat of construction" to service the pool and terrace area. The portions of the path in the 75-250' setback area are not a hardcover problem. Crawford questioned if the entire path would need to be removed or just the portion in the 0-75' setback area. Schroeder questioned the amount of hardcover in the 0-75' setback area. Mabusth responded that 21,557 s.f or 16.47% was approved in earlier reviews. The additional 4' paved walkway, 10' paved drive and retaining wall repairs in the 0-75' zone brings the property to 16.76®/o hardcover in the 0- 75' setback area. He did not object to the walkway but did question the drive. Other members agreed. Peterson commented that in the 1993 review members questioned the foundation of the greenhouse and were told that no further improvements were planned. Crawford responded they were not planned at that time. Peterson asked if there were any other violations staff had observed since previous approvals had been granted. Mabusth responded that the Building Inspector works very closely with Crawford and was not aware of any other violations. Smith asked Crawford if there were any other improvements planned for this property in the near future. Crawford responded that there has been some discussion of restoration/s^ctural repair of the caretaker house. Variances would be required for a side setback and repair to an oversized accessory structure.