Laserfiche WebLink
A <br /> MINUTES OF THE ' <br /> ORONO PLAN1vING COMIVIISSION MEETING <br /> Monday,October 15,2007 <br /> 6:00 o'clock p.m. <br /> *4. #07-3326 THEODORE SCHULTZE AND MARY STEIL-SCIiULTZE,744 BROWN <br /> ROAD NORTH,CONDITIONAL USE PERNIIT <br /> Kroeger moved,Zullo seconded,to recommend approval of Application#07-3326,Theodore <br /> Schultze and Mary Steil-Schultze,744 Brown Road North,granting of a conditional use permit <br /> and setback variance in conjuncHon with a covenant pursuant to Code Section 78-303(1'n. <br /> VOTE: A�es 5,Nays 0. <br /> OLD BUSINESS <br /> 5. #07-3305 LAKE COUNTRY BUILDERS ON BEHALF OF JAMES ZIMMERMAN, <br /> 2745 SHADYWOOD ROAD,VARIANCE,6:06 P.M.—6:55 P.M. <br /> Gregg Graton with Lake Country Builders,and James Zimmerman,Applicant,were present. <br /> Curtis stated this application was discussed at the August Planning Commission meeting as well as the <br /> September Planning Commission meeting. There were four Commissioners in attendance at the August <br /> meeting. At that time the applicant was requesting hardcover and lake setback variances in order to <br /> construct additions to the existing home. Following a discussion about the proposal, it appeared there <br /> were at least three Commissioners generally supportive of the applicant's request. A general consensus <br /> was reached that the applicant's Option#3 was most favored as long as the roofline was lowered and the <br /> proposed porch at the point was removed from the plan. However, one Commissioner remained <br /> unsatisfied that the applicant was making a reasonable request,and if a vote would have been taken,at <br /> least this one Commissioner would have voted to deny the application. Generally the applicant was <br /> given direction and the application was tabled to the September meeting. <br /> At the September Planning Commission,the applicant brought two separate revised options forward. <br /> Both of these options generally met the direction given at the previous meeting. Only one of the <br /> commissioners present at the August meeting was present at the September meeting. Upon reviewing <br /> the applicant's revised proposal,the Commission generally felt that the applicant's request was <br /> unreasonable and discussed denial. The applicant was taken by surprise at this conclusion,and rather <br /> than having the application denied by the four-member commission,they requested their application be <br /> tabled. <br /> Curtis stated the first option being presented tonight eliminates the screen porch addition at the point <br /> end of the property but proposes to retain an existing grade level patio and pergola. The second option <br /> proposed has the screened porch and balcony above the patio. These options appear to respond to the <br /> direction given by the Planning Commission at the August meeting. The existing pergola over the <br /> existing patio does constitute structural coverage and adds to the massing of the lot. <br /> Curtis noted while the driveway does not function as a turn-around for the neighborhood,the Fire <br /> Marshal does maintain that a residence 150 feet from the public roadway must provide a turn-around for <br /> emergency vehicles. The turn-around should not be nanower than 14 or 15 feet in width,which would <br /> require that the hardcover for the existing driveway be maintained at a somewhat lower level but kept at <br /> the same width. <br /> PAGE 2 <br />