06-17-1996 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MIWIES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON MAY 20, 1996 (#6 - #2137 William and Susan Dunkley - Continued) When asked about hardships. Exhibit A was noted, which lists the reasons for the spa. but Gaffron said mi harckhip statement was incliuled Exhibit R rites medical reasons for the Spa Peterson said he did not see the a\ erage 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 with a representation of the spa room addition He noted that the addition was an improvement to the visual impact Hawn inquired what was being placed under the spa room. Carl Smith said this was undecided Lindquist 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 difference between a porch and this addition Gaffron remarked that the spa room w as brought up at the Council meeting at the end of the process w ith the last application but was reipiested to be submitted as a separate project He added that Dale Gustafson had suggested that more of the walkway pavers could be removed Gaffron noted that the drivew ay is located out of the 0-75' setback The retaining walls are necessary' due to the slope of the land Gaffron added that it could be argued that hardcover is hardcover Smith commented, if the screened porch was denied, and there were no other areas w here hardcover 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 either 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 low ering it or mov ing it forward I lawn suggested exploring the idea of using the lower level room and eliminate the visual impact from the lake view. Carl Smith was informed if tabled, the application could come back before the Planning Commission on June 17, w'ith Council review on June 24.