Laserfiche WebLink
MINU, OF THE REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD SEPTEMBER 8, 1986 <br />#1048/104 _063 WASHINGTON SCIENTIFIC INC. CONTINUED <br />Mike Unger stated that he has reviewed the drafted <br />resolution and agreed with everything except condition <br />#1 which states "Prior to the issuance of a building <br />permit for the accessory structure, applicant must <br />execute an agreement that would ag _ to provide the <br />City with a 60 foot wide road easem ,t through the <br />subject prom erty to be located and defined at the <br />completion the Highway 12 Planning Study". He statc:3 <br />that he ' els this has no effect on the proposed <br />building and noting that W.S.I. is not against a <br />frontage road but there are several issues to be <br />addressed. <br />Councilmember Grabek stated that he felt the City was <br />holding the applicant up with their good intention and <br />taking advantage of them by making them promise an <br />easement in exchange for allowing them to build the <br />storage building. He feels it is immoral and unethical. <br />It was noted that the condition was made in conjunction <br />with granting the variance to the Hwy. 12 moritorium in <br />order to assure the City will. get the easements. <br />Mr. Unger noted that the only reason for the accessory <br />building is due to P.C.A. requirements. <br />Counci _ e::icr Adams addressed the issue of allowing a <br />different type of material to be used for the accessory <br />building than that used with the main building, noting <br />the reason seems to be economic. <br />Councilmember Frahm stated that W.S.I. has assured that <br />the building will be adequately screened. <br />Councilmember Grabek stated that the aesthetics of <br />the <br />building is indeed important, however it should <br />be <br />addressed as a separate issue. Reap rding the location <br />of tho proposed building, he ma tains that it <br />has <br />nothing to do with the Hwy. 12 study. <br />It was moved by Councilmember Frahm, seconded <br />by <br />C )ncilmember Grabek, to grant a variance to <br />the <br />moratorium based on 1 ) the fact that the P.C.A. <br />has <br />issued a non-compliance order; and 2) placement of <br />the <br />building is within the fenced in area which has <br />no <br />effect on ai;y of the proposeO road easements withi- <br />the <br />moratorium. Motion, Ayes 5, Nays 0. <br />H <br />