05-13-1991 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Im 4. The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application at a public hearing on March 18 and March 20, 1991 at which time comments were heard from all interested parties. The Planning Commission voted 2 to 2 on a motion to recommend approval of the requested variances. 5. The Orono City Council reviewed this application on April 8, 1991 and voted 3 to 2 to conceptually deny the proposed variances and directed staff to draft a resolution of denial. 6. The Orono City Council reviewed additional information submitted by the applicant and the staff on April 22, 1991 and voted 3 to 2 to conceptually approve the proposed variances, directing staff to draft a resolution for approval. 7. The applicants were granted variance approval in 1987 per Resolution #2204 of the City Council, to allow construction of a 16,875 s.f. floor area detached sports center/recreational accessory building located between the defined front lot line and the principal building on the property. Resolution #2204 granted variances to Section 10.03, Subdivision 9 (C) to allow a maximum accessory structure floor area exceeding 1,000 s.f.; a variance to Section 10.03, Subdivision 9 (B) to allow such accessory structure to have a defined building height of 33* and a peak height of 40* where only a 30* defined building height is normally allowed; a similar height variance per the similar requirements of Section 10.28, Subdivision 5 (A); and a variance to Section 10.03, Subdivision 9 (D) which requires that no accessory structure be located nearer the front lot line than the principal building on the property. 8. The following hardships and areas of practical difficulty for justification of the requested variances granted in 1987 are as follows; A. As evidenced by the soil samples taken on the property, the water table is very high. Several samples indicate that the water level is only 4-5* below the land surface. The overall height of the tennis facility could be reduced by placing it deeper into the ground but for the level of the water table. Additional, the comoosition of the soil also dictates the location of the facility. To move the building from the present designed location would require extensive soil correction. Both the soil composition and water table level are out of control of the aoolicants. ^ -----