08-21-2000 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JULY 17»2000 (^2601 JOHN AND KAREN BLANK, Continued) Blank stated their area is heavily wooded and has become more heavily wooded over the years. Blank stated a section where the sport court is to be located does contain a number of small scruffy trees and weeds. Smith stated that section has been set aside as being within a protected area as part of the Sugar Woods development. Blank stated to her recollection the guidelines were geared around a particular size of the tree located within this area. Blank stated trees over a certain diameter arc not to be removed. Gaffron stated Resolution 2653 talks about the open space areas, outlets A and B, and the defined setback areas within each residential lot shall be restricted from all grading and land alteration activities, and no tree in c.xccss of two inches in diameter and four foot height shall be removed. Stoddard inquired whether the resolution contains a certain foot setback that they need to stay out of. Gaffron stated the defined setback areas arc the 50’ front and rear and the 30’ sides. Stoddard inquired where the sport court could be located without the need for a variance. Bottenberg indicated the location of the sport court on the map. Stoddard commented she would be able to go 20 f ;ct further back according to his understanding. Gaffron stated she would not be allowed to build any structures outside of the building pad that has been defined bv the 50’ front and rear setbacks and 30’ side setback. Stoddard stated Section 10.03, Subd. 14(D) reads: rear setback: tennis courts - when such accessory structures c.xcccd 1,000 square foot footprint area shall be subject to the following special setback restrictions: rear year 30’ minimum and not within the required rear yard area. Stoddard inquired whether the Applicant is being granted an extra 20 feet. Gaffron stated that is not the ease, noting the more restrictive code always applies. Gaffron stated the section of the Sugar Woods Resolution is more restrictive relating to setbacks than what is contained in Citv Code and is what the Citv needs to use as their standard. Stoddard commented they have received some requests for driveway variances in this area, with this setback area being established to protect the wooded area in this development. There were no public comments regarding this application. Lindquist stated he has a problem approving this application due to the encroachment into the setback area that has been established specifically for the Sugar Woods development. Smith stated she is in agreement with Lindquist. PAGE 17