Project Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF ORONO COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 8, 1990 ZONING FILE i1468-PILLSBURY CONTINUED before the Planning Commission, the applicants have revised their proposal so as to decrease hardcover further to 5.5%. Gaffron showed a sketch of the proposal. Gaffron said that. the City Engineer has reviewer' the preliminary grading plan and has indicated that the proposal is appropriate. Gaffron also noted that one corner of the greenhouse will be 58.5' from the shoreline and that a corner of the existing house is located 57' from the shoreline. Gaffron said that the drainage system being proposed is unique. Mr. Mitchell explained that the Pillsburys have revised their initial pla.� twice in an effort to work with the City and reduce the size of the addition. Mr. Mitchell said that the paving stones proposed for removal have always been included in the hardcover calculations. Mr. Mitchell said, "the situation here, in terms of the requests are primarily for varianc-s. Variances, as you know, we frequently talk in terms of a hardship, but when you break down the elements of the hardship they are considered to be: to look for unique qualities, property rights of the applicant that you are preserving, to look for adverse or no adverse effects on the neighbors, to look for comprehensive plan violaticns and whether the applicant has created t:.e situation which is required to be varied from". Mr. Mitchell said that there are facts in -his application relative to those elements that in combination make a hardship. Tn this case there is an unusual situation because the lot is 50% larger than the required minimum. The percentage of hardcover in the two zones further from the lake is vastly less than that which is allowed. Mr. Mitchell noted that the Planning Commission had voted 5 to 2 in favor of this application without the recent revision to remove the paving stones. Mr. Pillsbury said, "we really think that we are doing something that people who live around the lake want done and that is to reduce the runoff. The minor ad:!ition really fits in with the scheme of the house". Councilmember Callahan questioned whether the conditional use permit was separate from the application for the greenhouse:' Gaffron replied that there is only one application with two facets. Gaffron asked the Pillsburys whether they would proceed with the shoreline restoration if the greenhouse were dr--?ed'' Mr. Pillsbury said they would not ltt the bank roll into the lake but he did not know whether they would proceed to the degree now proposed. Mr. Pillsbury said that -hey probably would not remcve the paving stones if the additior .cos not approved. Mrs. Pillsbury noted that the existing hedge alon4 the bank is falling into the lake and something will have to be done. It was moved by Mayor Grabek, seconded by Councilmember 8