07-15-1996 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

iVtTNXTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMNOSSION MEETING HELD ON MAY 20, 1996 (#5 - #21 j 5 Paul and Sue Hedlund * Continued) Vote; Ayes 5. Nays 0. (#6) #2137 WILLLAM AND Sl’SAN DTNKLEY, 2709 WALTERS PORT LANE - VARIANCES - PUBLIC HEARING 9:13-9:38 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted The Applicant was represented by Carl Smith. Gaffion reviewed the proposals and improvements to the Dunkley property An addition to the house, revamping of a garage waH, replacement of retaining w alls, and a new entry way w as approved in 1995 with revision to hardcover with removal of retaining w alls 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 Changing the deck to the proposed enclosed structure would decrease the hardcover by 24 s.f but would increase the lot coverage by stnjcture from l5.6°o to !6 The additional structure also encroaches the average setback line Gaffion 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, w ould not affect the view s of the other properties. Gaffion said there may be opportunities for hardcover reduction but the intensive review of the hardcover was done with the earlier application Gaffion added that the driveway is very' large and could be an option for hardcover reduction. Peterson commented that the applicants have done a fantastic job on replacing the retaining w'alls and redoing the landscaping. He noted their compliance w'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 replaced He asked if the deck could be moved forward'^ Gaffion agreed 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 with the patio door on the left side Hawn was informed that the spa was 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 w'as not in good condition, and the spa was 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. I