11-19-2001 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MONDAY, OCTOBER IS, 2001 (#13) #01-2727 MARY AND JOE KING, 142 CHEVY CHASE DRIVE, VARIANCES, 9:24 p.m. - 9:37 p.m. Mary and Joe King, Applicants, were present, along with Mark Sharratt, Architect, and JefT Switzer, Architect. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. Bottenberg stated the Applicants are requesting a lot area variance to construct a new residence on the lot. The Applicant’s initial proposal has been revised, with the proposed size of the residence being downsized to 14.9 percent structural coverage, meeting the 15 percent structural coverage for the lot. The Applicants have indicated a desire to retain an in ground pool on the property. Orono City Ordinance adopted in February, I9<)0, states that pools, including pool basin and associated deck or patio areas, regardless of whether such pool basin, deck, or patio is enclosed with a fence, shall be included in the calculation of lot coverage by structures. The proposed residence, pool, and deck total 6,790 square feet or 23.2 percent structural coverage. Cit>' Staff is considering the possibility of revisiting the ordinance and amending the ordinance, with Planning Commission review in November. The Applicants have stated they would remove the pool when the existing residence is demolished if their lot area variance is approved. However, the Applicants would prefer to delay removal of the pool until the ordinance has been revisited and a determination is made as to whether pools should be included in structural lot coverage. However, they will then have an accessory structure without a principal residence. A variance for this needs to be applied for and approved prior to construction of the new residence. Staff is recommending approval of the lot area variance with the condition that the pool be removed when the house is demolished. Staff also recommends the granting of a conditional variance for accessory structure without a principal structure, which would only be effective if the code is changed prior to the demolition of the house to no longer calculate pools and their patios as lot coverage. Weinberger stated the City has received a petition from a number of the adjoining property owners indicating they are supportive of the project. Mark Sharratt stated the Applicants would like to replace the existing house since it is outdated and rebuild on the lot. Sharratt stated the only variance they are requesting at this time is a lot area variance, but they would like to request the City reconsider their ordinance regarding pools and whether pools should be included in the structural lot coverage. Sharratt stated the property owners would prefer to keep the pool if at all possible. Mrs. King requested the Planning Commission reconsider their ordinance, noting they would like to retain the pool. There were no public comments relating to this application. Lindquist inquired whether the Planning Commission would need to review the ordinance. Gaffron stated at the time this ordinance was adopted, he was opposed to including pools and their patios as structural coverage in the ordinance back in 1990. Gaffron stated the intent of the ordinance was to regulate visual density, bulk and massing of structures on property, with the Council electing PAGE 23 V' t___.