Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANN_TNG COTMMISSION <br />MEETING HELD ON MAY 20. 1996 <br />(#6 - #2137 William and Susan Dunkley - Continued) <br />When asked about hardships, Exhibit A was noted, which lists the reasons for the spa, but <br />Gaffron said no hardshin statement was included, Exhibit R cites medical reasons for the <br />spa. <br />Peterson said he did not see the average lakeshore setback as a problem with this <br />proposal, Gaffilron Suggested a possible Li litigation with screening o trees or landscaping. <br />Carl Smith showed an visual representation of the deck along with a representation of the <br />Cna rnnm addition_ HP_, noted that the. addition was an improvement to the Vlsllal imna('t. <br />Hawn inquired what was being placed under the spa room. Carl Smith said this was <br />undecided. <br />Lindquist questioned whether this addition was too much for the property. Peterson <br />nntPrl that the deck does need to ha replaced_ Smith nuP.q innPrl why it was not inchirled <br />in original proposal. Hawn noted that the Commission denied a screen porch and could <br />not ann on., A;i�nrnn�n {�n4.vnnn o »nrnL� onr� 4bie o�Ai4inn (ini� -'rnn rnm�r�rn� 4ho4 4f/�n o »� <br />VL JVV µil�' 4a11Vi ViiVV VVLYY VVii µ f./Vi Vii µlit{ Li1iJ µitUiLLV ii, \J µiii Vii iV111µ11�Vti LLiµ1 LiiV J1lµ <br />room was brought up at the Council_ meeting at the end of the process with the last <br />application but was requested to he siinmitted as a. separate pro ect He added that Dale <br />Gustafson had suggested that more of the walkway pavers could be removed. Gaffron <br />• noted that the drive -vay is located nl..it nfthe 0 -75' ePthn L- The retaining lx7allp are <br />necessary due to the slope of the land. Gaffron added that it could be argued that <br />bar dvv v er LS hardvv`v'er. Siiuth vviiiiiLented, Lf th °v Screened porch VV'aS denied, an bier e <br />were no other areas where hardcover could be reduced, the limit in lot coverage may <br />already have been reached. <br />There were no public comments. <br />Lindquist moved, Peterson seconded, to approve Application #2137. Vote: Ayes 2, <br />Lindquist, Peterson' Nays 3, Stoddard, Smitli, Ha::n �^4i ;t n failed. <br />Gaffron asked for either another motion or reasons for denial. Stoddard noted the view. <br />(`or) �mi4L� ooirL Lin — o i�nviL��n in 4t1n ri noinn end �hohrrno 1 --JA :�n morin PA +_nn cnirL <br />t,µ11 Vi111Lii Jµ1U iiV YYµJ ilVfiiViV iii LiiV t1VJi Cvil µlit{ Vliµ11�,VJ VVµiti VV illµ�i V. 1 V-JI/ii <br />the Commission would need to table the application if a redesign was done. <br />Carl Smith asked if the height was an issue. Smith said in terms of hardcover, she could <br />not see where reductinnc rn,j1r1 n��l lr gMith enid Che xx�as be mnrP inclined to 4mnnnrt the <br />rr�- <br />spa room if the visual impact was minimized by lowering it or moving it forward. Hawn <br />Sugge+-A l .r:,, . +1,- ;A , � „�:,, , .t,o l ...,�,r lo�,ol a l;m;» ,.v +t,e 1 � <br />JLVLl e�lpiVi 1116 LLLV LUVµ VL UJiii� LLL%, LV VV V1 LV V Vi rVVLit al1U eititiitiµLV LLLL, vISUa1 LilipacL <br />from the lake view. <br />Carl Smith was informed if tabled, the application could come back before the Planning <br />Cnmm'ceinn nn Thine 17 xx':th Council revile::' nn Tiwne 2d <br />15 <br />