Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br /> JULY 17, 2000 <br /> • <br /> (#6) #2601 JOHN AND KAREN BLANK, 2100 SUGARWOOD DRIVE—VARIANCE, <br /> ) SUG 00 , <br /> 8:19 p.m.—8:37 p.m. <br /> Karen Blank, Applicant, was present. <br /> The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. <br /> Bottenberg stated the Applicants are proposing to construct a 29' by 55' sport court at the rear <br /> of their property. The proposed sport court would be located ten feet from the rear property line <br /> where 50 feet is required. <br /> Bottenberg indicated this property lies within the Sugar Woods development, with Resolution <br /> No. 2653 being adopted in July of 1989, creating Sugar Woods as a Planned Residential <br /> Development. The resolution states approval was based on limiting the development and future <br /> use of property within the Sugar Woods development. It specifically defines building setbacks <br /> and limits hardcover improvements. Bottenberg indicated performance standards were <br /> established for each lot and allows a building pad for principal and accessory structures by <br /> establishing specific setbacks (50' front and rear, 30' sides). The resolution limits hardcover to <br /> 80 percent of the building pad and lot coverage to 15 percent of the entire lot. The only <br /> hardcover allowed outside the defined building pad is a narrow driveway to the road. Bottenberg <br /> stated these standards were established not only to provide buffers but to protect the wooded <br /> character of the unique Sugar Woods property. <br /> • The Applicants have presented their proposal to the Sugar Woods Homeowners Association as <br /> required. The Board of Directors of the Sugar Woods Homeowners Association unanimously <br /> approved the plan. In Staffs opinion the abbreviated process was not intended to apply to <br /> accessory structure setback variances, especially when such structures would not only be in <br /> violation of the more restrictive standards for Sugar Woods, but would also not meet the less <br /> restrictive general zoning standards or the standards for the underlying R-1A zoning district. <br /> Bottenberg stated the total property hardcover, including the sport court and existing driveway, <br /> will be an area equivalent to just under 57 percent of the building pad area, meeting the <br /> 80 percent limitation. <br /> Blank stated their hardship relates to the trees in the area, noting that there are some very large <br /> Maples they would like to save. Blank commented they have attempted to locate the sport <br /> court in the place where they will save the most large trees and to allow room for a gazebo. <br /> Blank stated by moving the sport court forward, they would be required to remove a couple of <br /> large trees. <br /> Smith commented that the Applicant would be required to remove a number of small trees with the <br /> sport court in the proposed location. <br /> Blank stated in her opinion those trees are scruffy trees. <br /> Smith stated that one of the inherent features to the Sugar Woods area is the heavily wooded trees <br /> • along the rear property lines, which this setback has been designed to protect. <br /> PAGE 16 <br />