09-25-1995 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING C0\LM1SS10N MEETING ffiLD ON AUGUST 21, 1995 (#16 - #2058 Ron Rantz/Autografs - Continued) Berg was informed, when ^ked. that no drainage would flow from this property to Kelly A\-cnue. Schroeder noted that the proposed building was very’ large for new technology' Waters said the technology has existed and proven to work Schroeder also reiterated the relayed information given bv the applicant ot an air inliltration system, similar to a big computer room, with no hazardous materials used. Smith asked if the product would be taken to ihe public or to businesses. She was informed that the product would be taken to the general public this tall as well as to a production center located in California The application ot the decals is peiiormed, hower/er, at the car dealerships The appropriateness of the use was discussed within the B4 zoning district Mabusth said the Planning Commission needed to determine if the business mc«»ts the intent of the B-4 zoning code Schroeder said the use as an olTice is met but other areas may be more problematic As a building for creative use, Peterson said it falls under items 11 and 18. The intent of the B4 is its relationship to residential area as an administrative office building with limited public access and no exterior sales Peterson said he saw the proposal as an appropriate use Hawn questioned the expansion and using residential propeny for the purpose of expansion The applicant said it w as unknown if expansion would be needed Mabusth said the residential lot could not be used for any expansion without rezoning Lindquist and Berg informed the applicant that they would probably not agree to allow any expansion within the residential area. The applicant asked why he should have to pay taxes on a piece of propeny if he is unable to expand onto it and has no use for it Mabusth said a 24' road would have been required and the 35' setback to rear lot line The applicant was showai to benefit with owning this lot as he would be able, with having the residential lot as pan of the combined lots, to construct the structure at the lot line without encroachment into the residential area Otherwise, there would be a 35' rear yard setback required. The combination of the three lots allows the applicant some tle.xibility. The applicant asked if he would be able to propose rezoiiing of the lot in the future. He was informed that this would be possible, but was also informed that the Planning Commission was unable to make such commitments to applicant This was an issue to be best addressed by the City Council Peterson moved. Sebjoeder seconded, to approve .Application #2058 25