05-20-1996 Planning Commission Minutes

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON MAY 20. 1996 i ( #5 - #2135 Paul and Sue Hedlund - Continued) Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. ( #6) #2137 WILLIAM AND SUSAN DUNKLEY, 2709 WALTERS PORT LANE K4RTANCES - PUBLIC HEARING 9:13-9:38 P—M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. The Applicant was represented by Carl Smith. Gaffron reviewed the proposals and improvements to the Dunkley property. An addition to the house, revamning of a garage wall re.niarPmPnt of retaining walls, and a n w P.nt_rV way was approved in 1995 with revision to hardcover with removal of retaining walls that :.TPVr °v r °v »laced with »lantinge The vlLirr °vnt »ry ^v3a1 i.°i tv ''ha" ^P a deck Pn +kA grN„th c;riu Y Y b y Y vllullsv v ull ,lu. of the residence and replace it with a room with a pool spa. This addition would meet the 10' side setback but is located within the 0 -75' setback Changing the deck to the proposed enclosed structure would decrease the hardcover by 24 sT but would increase the lot rtoverag- by ztn,i, ,rP from 1 5 60l to 16 .7. 0/ The adrlitinnal ctnu- imp Alen »,,- -1 encroaches the average setback line. Gaffron noted that the homes to the north and r.,,L.. lOL t 4lr u v �t,o .,, ,,,o,+;o� Tt,o „�1 ' + „r+J,o il,,,,vlo., property, s- u',ea,+ are set 1011 back on he properties. 11.e visual .mpaCL Vl Llle Lulllile propert , with its bulk in the 0 -75' setback, would not affect the views of the other properties. Gaffron saki there may he opportunities for hard cnver reduction hilt the intensive review of the hardcover was done with the earlier application. Gaffi-on added that the driveway is A/ercr laraa nrl n�lrl hP an »tnn fnr hnMrNx r er;rtnn J b" n � Y i o eriy • Peterson commented that the applicants have done a fantastic job on replacing the retaining Aifalic and re4lnina the lalnrir�i »a YJA nnteul their rnm »fiance ::';tl: the re ^L:eSts Y �y. y `1 of the City. Letters have also been received from the neighbors approving what has already been done on the property. Peterson noted the limitations to the property but agreed that the deck needs to be removed or replaced_ He asked if the deck could be moved forward? Gaffron agreed that this could be an option and asked how it would affect the side setback variance? Carl Smith responded that the location of the spa room was best suited to the location +1, the .,"o door �,., the ie4 i V�'ltll L f./UL1V t1VV1 V L11V 1VIL Jlu V. Hawn was informed that the spa was a therapeutic need for the applicant. Hawn asked W'hy Lhe lint LUL, 1 0011, lVCated beneath the area in questmn could not be used 1L1J1 Lhe Spa. Carl Smith said that hot tub was not in good condition, and the spa was probably too large fni- that nartirlflar roam. C'Ta_ff_rnn questioned whether there was anv ingl_r, to nlaring the spa at the other end of the home? This would be a location near the master bedroom. 14