Laserfiche WebLink
i <br />Tot Mayor Petersen & Orono Council Members <br />City Administrator Bernhardson A </ <br />Front <br />Oates <br />Subjects <br />Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning & Zoning Adn({|i^t^^or <br />% \ 'April 16, 1991 6, ‘V <br />#1629 W. D. MacMillan/McNulty Construction Company - ‘ <br />1700 Fox Street - Variance - Resolution <br />List of Bzhibits <br />Exhibit A <br />Exhibit B <br />Exhibit C <br />Exhibit D <br />Exhibit E <br />Exhibit F <br />Denial Resolution <br />Council Action Notice 4/16/91 <br />Standard Variance Conditions <br />City Attorney Opinion re: Homestead Status <br />Memo 6 Exhibits of 4/2/91 <br />Minutes & Memos from 1987 Approval <br />Discassloii <br />At your April 8th meeting, Council voted 3 to 2 to <br />conceptually deny the variance request, and directed staff to <br />draft a resolution for the next Council meeting. Such a <br />resolution for Council consideration is attached. <br />You may recall that the applicants request for tabling was <br />ruled out of order, however, the conceptual denial had a similar <br />effect to tabling in that final action on the matter was delayed. <br />The denial resolution incorporates the hardships presented <br />by the applicant. In order to adopt the resolution. Council must <br />make the determination that those hardships are insufficient to <br />justify granting the variances. <br />At the April meeting, applicant correctly indicated that <br />attachsient 3f the proposed additions to the principal residence <br />on the prOt/««rty would in fact not require City Council approval. <br />Mhile this would not accomplish applicants goals, and might not <br />be practical or efficient, it certainly could occur. An issue <br />might be the method of attachment and what degree of separation <br />by various methods of attachment is still considered legitimate. <br />If Council is concerned that approval of the requested <br />variances sets a negative precedent, consider that due to the <br />covenant this is without question a unique situation, in that: <br />1.The applicants have given up specific property rights <br />which virtually eliminates subdivision of this 13.5 <br />acre parcel as long as the tennis court building <br />exists.