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