Laserfiche WebLink
l <br /> NIINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLAN1vING COMMISSION MEETING <br /> Tuesday,March 17,2008 <br /> 7:00 o'clock p.m. <br /> (#08-3350 Sven Gustafson with Stonewood,continued) <br /> Gaffron noted a standard tennis court is 60' x 120' or 7,200 square feet. Gaffron noted the tennis <br /> court being proposed is significantly smaller than the standard tennis court. � <br /> Kempf asked if a new residence were constructed within the same building envelope whether they <br /> would be allowed to keep the existing tennis court. . <br /> Turner stated typically whenever the prir�cipal structure is removed,the accessory structures must also <br /> be removed. Turner indicated there is some question whether a variance was granted for the existing <br /> tennis court and that the City's files.do not contain all of the necessary information needed to , <br /> determine whether a variance was granted at one time. <br /> Winer asked if it is in the City's best interests to accept the significant reduction in hardcover. <br /> Turner indicated that is one of the issues that the Planning Commission should consider. Tumer stated <br /> the applicants have submitted house plans but they are not really a part of this application since the <br /> house plans are conforming. <br /> Kempf commented he would have liked to have seen the house plans to ensure him that the plans are � <br /> complete: � � <br /> � � Gustafson indicated he does have a set of plans available here that the Planning Commission could • � <br /> review. . • <br /> ,. Turner stated the applicants could change the house plans but they would be restricted to a certain <br /> hardcover numb'er. � � <br /> Kempf briefly reviewed the house plans shown him by Gustafson and stated he does not see anything <br /> glaring on the plans that should be addressed. <br /> Kroeger commented he simply does not want to see a new application sometime in the future asldng <br /> for a deck or other hardcover if the tennis court is approved. <br /> Zullo stated she does not see the need to grant a variance to construct a new tennis court. <br /> Gustafson stated the property owner would like to improve his residence to accommodate his growing <br /> family and that one of the main reasons why they purchased this property initially was the tennis court. <br /> While reviewing their options,it was determined that the house was somewhat outdated,remodeling <br /> the structure would be expensive, and that the better option would be to construct a new residence. <br /> Gustafson noted they did reduce the size of the tennis court as much as possible but still allow them to <br /> • have a useable tennis court. Gustafson indicated they have examined a number of options for reducing <br /> the hardcover further, and that if 500 square feet of hardcover in the 75-250 foot zone was shifted over <br /> to the 250 foot zone,they would be asking for a hardcover variance of 1260 square feet between the <br /> two zones. <br /> PAGE 6 <br />