09-18-1995 Planning Commission Minutes

Home Browse Search

• • MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON SEPTEMBER 18, 1995 ( #16 - #2073 William and Susan Dunkley - Continued) Gaffron said the application is for a number of projects to update the property to include the replacement and enhancement of additional retaining walls of keystone -type product 1- 2' lakeward from the wood walls, which are T to 4' in height. The property is located on a channel to a lagoon area and contains a stairwell to the lake side. The proposal also calls for replacement or enhancement of retaining walls to support the driveway. The Engineer was concerned with the wood walls being left in place, which would eventually rot. The second part of the application is for an entryway over the existing front steps to ease a drainage problem. This would add 100 s. f. of structural hardcover to the property. The third part of the application is for the addition of a 10'x16' deck and a 10'x33' enclosed porch area, to be located 19' and 24' respectively from the lake. The lot coverage by structures is proposed at 16 -1/2% where 15% is allowed. Gaffron reported there is extensive amount of hardcover on the property with the driveway, existing rock, and patio areas. The 0 -75' zone contains 49.6% of hardcover; the 75 -250' zone contains 74.2 %; for a total of 56.6% hardcover, which is double the DNR standards. By removing all of the rock and plastic, the hardcover would be reduced to 35% in the 0 -75' zone and to 43% in the 75 -250% zone. Rock would still exist along the garage area. Hawn asked what the reasons were for the wall. The applicant said it was to replace walls that had fallen over and to strengthen the walls. The applicant said it was started by erosion of the foundation of the garage. Gaffron said the Engineer has recommended removal of the existing wood retaining walls rather than leaving them in place behind the new walls. Hawn said with a new entry and new retaining walls and the three patio /deck spaces around the house, it was a densely covered lot. Hawn recommended taking the deck and turning that into a porch instead to reduce the structural coverage. The applicant responded that there was no first floor family room and was putting a family room where the lower level and upper level decks were by the garage area so as to not impede the view. The roof line would remain the same. Smith agreed that the lot coverage was excessive. Rowlette commented that the lot was maxed out in lot coverage as it now stands. She noted the driveway area was large and saw no need for that much space for a turnaround. 26