11/17/03 Planning Commission Minutes

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, November 17, 2003 6:00 o'clock p.m. (#9) #03-2866A DAVID AND JUDY ZOSCHKE, 2040 SHADYWOOD ROAD, ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL, Continued Gaffron stated that he'd discussed this application in July with Jennifer Chaput Zierke who was the Orono staff person responsible for the Zoschke application. Jennifer, currently the City Planner for Long Lake. advised Gaffron that the resolution, exhibit and memo accurately reflected what she believed to be the required removals. Gaffron stated he then requested that Planning Commissioner Jeanne Mabusth review the audio tape of the meeting to determine whether any new information could be gleaned from the tape. After reviewing the tape she indicated that she could reach no conclusion as to the exact extent of removals required. She did indicate that there was discussion that occurred in relation to Gaffron's drawing the potential removals on an overhead transparency at the PC meeting. While it would be useful if that transparency was available, as is the City's standard practice, transparencies and duplicate copies of documents are discarded from the zoning files at the end of the review process. To further the review Gaffron stated that he brought the matter informally before the Planning Commission after their August or September meeting, and the few members present who were part of the February review did not have a clear recollection of the details of the required removals. This inability to reach a consensus generated a September 25 letter to the Zoschke's suggesting they could file an appeal. I did not offer the Zoschke's the option of filing for a new variance application, although that option was perhaps available; this could still be an option depending on the outcome of this appeal, but also puts them at risk of re-opening the entire hardcover issue and an even more negative result, from their perspective. Gaffron stated that the applicants' position is that they have removed all but a 2.5' strip of the lower patio, which was retained to support the retaining wall. They believe the stairway leading to the upper patio, and its adjoining spillway, need to be retained for drainage purposes and to retain access to the lower yard. They further want to keep the upper patio as it is accessible to family members who cannot traverse stairways. The applicants indicate they have removed a total of 447 s.f. of concrete to date, as well as the plastic landscape bed liners, which leaves them 234 s.f. short of the 681 s.f. removals required per the resolution. Gaffron pointed out that this appeal process is intended to allow for consideration of whether the administrative actions taken by Staff(i.e. the interpretation of what hardcover was required to be removed)reflects the intent of the Planning Commission and Council. Since this was on the Council's consent agenda, the primary review focus will be at the Planning Commission level, who could reach a variety of outcomes, including one of the following: 1. Determine that the staff interpretation as noted in Resolution No. 4920 correctly reflects the Planning Commission's intent. PAGE 17 of 41