Project Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, October 15, 2007 6:00 o'clock p.m. *4. #07-3326 THEODORE SCHULJZE AND MARY STEIL-SCHULTZE, 744 BROWN ROAD NORTH, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT Kroeger moved, Zullo seconded, to recommend approval of Application #07-3326, Theodore Schultze and Mary Steil-Schultze, 744 Brown Road North, granting of a conditional use permit and setback variance in conjunction with a covenant pursuant to Code Section 78-303(17). VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. OLD BUSINESS · 5. #07-3305 LAKE COUNTRY BUILDERS ON BEHALF OF JAMES ZIMMERMAN, 2745 SHADYWOOD ROAD, VARIANCE, 6:06 P.M. -6:55 P.M. Gregg Graton with Lake Country Builders , and James Zimmerman, Applicant, were present. Curtis stated this application was discussed at the August Planning Commission meeting as well as the September Planning Commission meeting. There were four Commissioners in attendance at the August meeting. At that time the applicant was requesting hardcover and lake setback variances in order to construct additions to the existing home . Following a discussion about the proposal, it appeared there were at least three Commissioners generally supportive of the applicant 's request. A general consensus was reached that the applicant's Option #3 was most favored as long as the roofline was lowered and the proposed porch at the point was removed from the plan. However, one Commissioner remained unsatisfied that the applicant was making a reasonable request, and if a vote would have been taken, at least this one Commissioner would have voted to deny the application. Generally the applicant was given direction and the application was tabled to the September meeting. At the September Planning Commission, the applicant brought two separate revised options forward . Both of these options generally met the direction given at the previous meeting . Only one of the commissioners present at the August meeting was present at the September meeting. Upon reviewing the applicant's revised proposal, the Commission generally felt that the applicant's request was unreasonable and discussed denial. The applicant was taken by surprise at this conclusion, and rather than having the application denied by the four-member commission, they requested their application be tabled. Curtis stated the first option being presented tonight eliminates the screen porch addition at the point end of the property but proposes to retain an existing grade level patio and pergola. The second option proposed has the screened porch and balcony above the patio. These options appear to respond to the direction given by the Planning Commission at the August meeting. The existing pergola over the existing patio does constitute structural coverage and adds to the massing of the lot. Curtis noted while the driveway does not function as a tum-around for the neighborhood, the Fire Marshal does maintain that a residence 150 feet from the public roadway must provide a tum-around for emergency vehicles . The tum-around should not be narrower than 14 or 15 feet in width, which would require that the hardcover for the existing driveway be maintained at a somewhat lower level but kept at the same width. PAGE2