Laserfiche WebLink
CITY of ORONO <br />RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL <br />NO. 2961 <br />4. The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application <br />at a public hearing on March 18 and March 20, 1991 at which <br />time comments were heard from all interested parties. The <br />Planning Commission voted 2 to 2 on a motion to recommend <br />approval of the requested variances. <br />5. The Orono City Council reviewed this application on <br />April 8, 1991 and voted 3 to 2 to conceptually deny the <br />proposed variances and directed staff to draft a resolution <br />of denial. <br />6. The Orono City Council reviewed additional information <br />submitted by the applicant and the staff on April 22, 1991 <br />and voted 3 to 2 to conceptually approve the proposed <br />variances, directing staff to draft a resolution for <br />approval. <br />7. The applicants were granted variance approval in 1987 <br />per Resolution #2204 of the City Council, to allow <br />construction of a 16,875 s.f. floor area detached sports <br />center/recreational accessory building located between the <br />defined front lot line and the principal building on the <br />property. Resolution #2204 granted variances to Section <br />10.03, Subdivision 9 (C) to allow a maximum accessory <br />structure floor area exceeding 1,000 s.f.; a variance to <br />Section 10.03, Subdivision 9 (B) to allow such accessory <br />structure to have a defined building height of 33' and a <br />peak height of 40' where only a 30' defined building height <br />is normally allowed; a similar height variance per the <br />similar requirements of Section 10.28, Subdivision 5 (A); <br />and a variance to Section 10.03, Subdivision 9 (D) which <br />requires that no accessory structure be located nearer the <br />front lot line than the principal building on the property. <br />8. The following hardships and ar+-as of practical <br />difficulty for justification of the requested variances <br />granted in 1987 are as follows: <br />A. As evidenced by the soil samples taken on the <br />property, the water table is very high. Several <br />samples indicate that the water level is only 4-5' <br />below the land surface. The overall height of the <br />tennis facility could be reduced by placing it deeper <br />into the ground but for the level of the water table. <br />Additional, the composition of the soil also dictates <br />the location of the facility. To move the building <br />from the present designed location would require <br />extensive soil ccrrectior.. Both the soil composition <br />and water table level are out of control of the <br />Pe►gc 2 •� �� <br />