07-23-2018 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

As you know, I'm disappointed that you're leaving Walters Port. It's always been my thought that Walters Port and Pence should become one, but guess it's too late now. I'm happy for you and Bill as you have worked together with us on your plans and dreams, but it also means a lot of changes for all of us. I hope it all turns out well for the two of you and for us (your neighbors). Good luck!" Patricia A. Morris, 2697 Kelly Avenue: "Melanie, please pass this to the Council. I am having a very hard time understanding why variances were granted in the first place to build an addition onto a home that was already out of character for this neighborhood. Where was the hardship for this? Now they want to split off a non -conforming lot to build another 7,000 square foot home that will require numerous variances? Any encroach the sightlines of the neighboring property? Again, what hardship does this present? They were told that this would be a problem when they combined their property with the 14. LA18-55 PAUL VOGSTROM OB/O WILLIAM AND SUE DUNKLEY, 2709 WALTERS PORT LANE, SKETCH PLAN — Continued Haberman property but that did not seem to deter them. It has always been my understanding that any new build had to conform to City Code. I do remember a few years back when one of my clients requested eight additional feet so they would not have to look at an illegal fireplace on the neighbor's property. They were told in no uncertain terms that the answer was no and Orono will never grant a variance to build anything in the 0-75. Dunkleys' property is already too close to the lake and so is the addition. So this must mean that now anyone can get a variance to do whatever they want in Orono? Dunkleys' property is directly in my sightline and I certainly do not want another structure when their home is already too large for this neighborhood." Bill and Sandra J. Keegan, 2707 Walters Port Lane: "Dear Melanie Curtis. We are in favor of most of the pond/wetland improvements that were proposed at the neighborhood meeting this past June 13t1i. There wasn't very much discussion on the Lot 2 split other than right now access would be on Walters Port Lane with hopefully switching that to Pence in the future. Our concerns have to do with drainage into our property. Since the rebuilt 10 years ago of the Dunkley property, we have had washout from their driveway into our property on the south side and also down our driveway. Our concern is that extending Walters Port Lane to access proposed Lot 2 would cause further runoff down Walters Port Lane as it is a hill and there will be increased hardcover. On the proposal there is a berm where there are presently pavers on the road. The landscaper indicated this might help divert the water away from our property but pavers would need to be removed. Sue Dunkley indicated she did not want to remove any pavers. We are also getting runoff behind our garage and don't think the berm would solve this issue. We would like to see this remedied as soon as possible. This project has changed the character of the neighborhood. It is much closer to us than we thought it would be and does surround our home. We understand that this is the Dunkleys dream so we have tried to be good neighbors. Unfortunately we are unable to come to the Council meeting tonight. Any questions, please call. Thanks for your time." Janice Berg: "Melanie, as someone who has served on the Planning Commission for many years, I find the above - referenced application very troubling. The request for variances and exceptions regarding building site, average lakeshore setback, creation of back lots and driveway access require the City to make many exceptions to City Code. 1. I see no hardship as the owner created this situation when they combined the two lots into one to build a large addition on their existing home. 2. Tearing down a home, City looks to make the new lot conforming to Code. 3. Three homes on a private driveway has been discouraged. 4. Creation of back lots has always been done not to create nonconforming properties.