07-08-1996 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE ORONO PL.^NNING CONCvOSSION MEETING HELD ON MAY 20. 1996 (#6 - <<2137 William and Susan Dunkley - Continued) Wen asked about hardships. Exhibit A was noted, w hich lists the reasons for the spa but Gaflron said no hardship statement w/as included Exhibit B cites medical reasons for the spa. Peterson said he did not see the average lakeshore setback as a problem with this proposal Gaffron suggested a possible mitigation with screening of trees or landscaping Carl Smith showed an visual representation of the deck along umh a representation of the spa room addition He noted that the addition was an improvement to the visual impact. Hawn inquired w hat was being placed under the spa room Carl Smith said this was undeci'ica. Lindquis: questioned whether this addition was too much for the property. Peterson noted that the deck does need to be replaced Smith questioned why it was not included in original proposal Hawn noted that the Commission denied a screen porch and could not see any difierence between a porch and this addition. Gaffron remarked that the spa room was brought up at ff - Council meeting at the end of the process with the last application hut was req aed to he submitted as a separate project He added that Dale Gustafson had suggested : ,.ai more of the w alkway pavers could be removed Gaffron noted that the drivewz-, ■» lixaied out of the 0-75' setback The retaining walls are necessary due to the iSe land Gaffron added that it could be argued that hardcover is hardcover - - :h commented, if the screened porch w as denied, and there were no other areas w her' w*rdcover could be reduced, the limit in lot coverage may already have been reached There were no public comments. Lindquist moved, Peterson seconded, to approve Application #2137. Vote; Ayes 2, Lindquist, Peterson, Nays 3, Stoddard. Smith, Hawn Motion failed. Gaffron asked for eiihei another motion or reasons for denial Stoddard noted the view. Carl Smith said he was flexible in the design and changes could be made Peterson said the Commission would need to table the application if a redesign was done Carl Smith asked if the height was an issue Smith said in terms of hardcover, .she could not see where reductions could occur. Smith said she was be more inclined to support the spa room if the visual impact was minimized by lowering it oi moving it forward. Hawn suggested exploring the idea of using the lower level room and eliminate the visual impact from the lake view Carl Smith was irfformed if tabled, the application could come back before the Planning Commission on June 17, with Council review on June 24.