10-28-1996 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINXrrES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON MAY 20, 1996 (#5 - #2135 Paul and Sue Hedlund - Continued) Vote Aves 5. Navs 0. (#6) #2137 WTLLLA.M AND SUSAN DirNKLEY, 2709 WALTFRS PORT LANE - VARLANCES - PUBLIC HEARING 9:13-9:38 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate ofNIailing were noted The Applicant was represented by Carl Smith Gaffron reviewed the proposals and improvements to the DunkJey property. .An addition to the house, revamping of a garage wall, replacement of retaining walls, and a new entry way was approved in 1995 with revision to hardcover w ith removal of retaining walls that were replaced with plantings. The current proposal is to change a deck on the south side of the residence and replace it w ith a room with a pool spa This addition would meet the 10’ side setback but is located within the 0-75* setback Cbanging the deck to the proposed enclosed structure would decrease the hardcover by 24 s f but would increa.se the lot coverage by structure from 15 6% to 16.7%. The additional structure also encroaches the average setback line Gaffron noted that the homes to the north and southeast are set far back on the properties The visual impact of the Dunkley property, with its bulk in the 0-75' setback, would not affect the views of the other properties. Gaffron said there may be opportunities for hardcover reduction but the intensive review of the hardcover was dort* with the earlier application Gaffron added that the driveway is vety large and could be an option for hardcover reduction. Peterson commented that the applicants have done a fantastic job on replacing the retaining v/alls and redoing the landscaping. He noted their compliance v/ith the requests 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 renlaced He a.sked if the deck could be moved forward'^ Gaffron aureed 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 w'ith the patio door on the left side. Hawn was informed that the spa u as a therapeutic need for the applicant. Hawn asked why the hot tub room located beneath the area in question could not be used for the spa. Carl Smith said that hot tub was not in good condition, and the spa w'as probably too large for that particular room. Gaffron questioned whether there was any logic to placing the spa at the other end of the home'’ This would be a location near the master bedroom.