PC Minutes 1994 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

0 MINUTES OF THE CITY OF ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON APRIL 18, 1994 (#9) #1915 GEORGE APPLEBAUM, 4109 HIGHWOOD ROAD - VARIANCES - PUBLIC HEARING (CONTINUED) not reflect accurately the existing site conditions. The Planning Commission requested the applicant to provide a more accurate survey of existing conditions prior to their next review of his proposal next month. Nolan stated he felt that the project was very ambitious and he would be looking for more trade -offs to gain approval. He also had some problems with two access in the lakeshore yard. He felt that this could be redesigned to reduce the hardcover on the property. The site was already fully developed and he felt that the hardcover area could be reduced. Lindquist stated he had a problem with anything closer to the lake than was presently existing. Berg stated she felt the proposal was overbuilding the site. Peterson and Smith concurred. Mabusth asked if they had problems with the second story addition. Lindquist responded negatively, but stated he felt that it was better than what was presently existing on the site. He did not like the walkout proposed below grade. It was moved by Lindquist, seconded by Nolan to continue #1915 Variances for George Applebaum, 4109 Highwood Road until the next meeting in May. Ayes 6, nays 0. 0 (#10) #1916 IRWIN JACOBS, 1700 SHORELINE DRIVE - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PUBLIC HEARING Mabusth gave the staff report and stated that staff recommended approval of the variance subject to the conditions included in the staff report. Mr. James Jensen was present representing the applicant. Peterson inquired why the contractor had not obtained a building permit prior to constructing the guard house, and Mr. Jensen responded that he realized that was not the normal procedure, but he had informed the City what was going on, and had also contacted the Orono Police Department. Lindquist inquired why they had not constructed a temporary structure and Mr. Jensen responded that they desired the look of permanence and security as soon as possible which was why they proceeded as they did. He stated all the other buildings on the site were necessary and they could not remove any of the structures. Chair Schroeder stated that the Planning Commission wished to be on record as not being supportive of after - the -fact variances. Peterson stated he was denied access to the site twice when he went out to view the property, and he had a difficult time approving something he had not seen. Smith was concerned about setting a precedent if they approve after - the -fact variances. Mabusth responded that this particular situation was so unique, it was doubtful if there would be any other similar • instances occurring. She noted that staff would create a set of unique findings for approval of the variance which would avoid setting a precedent. 7