06-17-1996 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON MAY 20, 1996 (#5 - #2135 Paul and Sue Hedlund - Continued I Vote: Aves 5. Navs 0. (#6) #2137 \\ ILIJAM and SUSAN DUN'KLFY, 2709 WAITERS PORT LANE VARLANCES - PUBLIC HEARING 9:13-9:38 P.M. The AffidaMt of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted The Applicant was represented bv Carl Smith Gaffron re\ iewed the proposals and improvements to the Dunkley property .An addition to the house, revamping of a garage wall, replacement of retaining walls, and a new entry’ w ay w as approved in 1995 w ith revision to hardcover with 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 with a room with a pool spa This addition would meet the 10' side setback but is located within the 0-75’ setback Chanuinu the deck to the W W proposed enclosed structure would decrease the hardcover by 24 s f but would increase the lot coverage by structure from 15 6® o to 16 The additional structure also encroaches the average setback line Gaffron noted that the homes to the nonh 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 view s of the other properties Gaffron said there may be opportunities for hardcover reduction hut the intensive review- of the hardcover was done with the earlier application Gaffron 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 walls and redoing the landscaping He noted their compliance with the requests of the City Letters have also been received from the neighbors approving what has already been done on ihe j)roperly 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 ’ Craffron 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 I lawn 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 was 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 f