Laserfiche WebLink
• <br />• <br />MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION <br />MEETING HELD ON JUNE 17, 1996 <br />( #2 - #2134 Rob Albrecht - Continued) <br />Peterson commented that a tradeoff of driveway for a deck is considered for <br />recommendations. He noted changes in the application as now presented, and the goal of <br />a net decrease in hardcover. <br />Hawn said the property, and its improvements, are attractive but had a problem with <br />setting a precedence. Peterson said that the applicant is staying within the precedent as he <br />is staying within the hardcover amount by showing a reduction. Hawn questioned the <br />structural versus non - structural hardcover removal. <br />Schroeder moved, Stoddard seconded, to approve the after- the -fact variance for the new <br />deck subject to the completion of removal of hardcover in the driveway and reduction in <br />size of the lower dock to conform to the existing code of 4' plus landing. Vote: Ayes 3, <br />Stoddard, Peterson, Schroeder, Nays 4, Lindquist, Berg, Smith, Hawn. Those <br />recommending denial agreed that the previous Planning Commission's directive was clear <br />to no further principal structure being placed in the lakeshore yard. Motion failed. No <br />further motions were offered. <br />( 0) #2137 WILLIAM DUNKLEY, 2709 WALTERS PORT LANE - VARIANCES - <br />CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING - 7:41 -7:58 P.M. <br />The applicant was represented by Dale Gustafson and Carl Smith. <br />Gaffron reported that the application was previously tabled to allow a revision to the <br />proposal for construction of an addition to the south end of the house. The Planning <br />Commission had suggested another location or lowering of the addition to reduce the <br />visual impact from the lake. At present, there exists a deck with a screen wall. The <br />original proposal was for an addition with a spa with a continuation of the roof line. The <br />revised proposal is for a shed -type roof which would lower the height of the addition <br />along with steps. The revision results in 1 s.f reduction than previous plan with a <br />different shape and a smaller pool. <br />Gustafson said other areas were explored in which to locate the pool. He noted the <br />existing large overhang on the house. Gustafson said all attached areas are within the 0- <br />75', and the decision was made to take advantage of the eave by placing the addition under <br />it. <br />Smith asked if the floor of the addition was lowered. Carl Smith said it was lowered 28" <br />and is practically at grade level. C. Smith said there a design difficulty with the door <br />located in the corner of the lower level. Smith noted that this revision was less intensive. <br />