04/16/2007 Planning Commission Minutes

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING . Monday,Apri116,2007 . 6:00 o'clock p.m. . (#07-3284 Michael Sharratt,Continued) Sharratt stated it is roughly 600 square feet. Kroeger moved,Kang seconded,to recommend approval of Application#07-3284,Sharratt , Design on.behalf of Tom and Kristen Ritchie,2507 Kelly Avenue,subject to the hardcover being reduced an additiona1300 square feet. VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0. - 13. #07-3285 ROBBIN AND KRISTINE JOHNSON, 1280 BRACKETTS POINT ROAD, VARIANCE, 11:21-11:40 P.M. Robbin Johnson,Applicant,was present. ' Turner stated the applicant is requesting a variance from the accessory structure separation requirement to construct a pool house/storage building four feet from the swimming pool when a ten foot separate is required. A hardcover variance is also requested. The residence was constructed in 1986. The swimming pool was constructed at the same time as the house. The pool equipment was placed in an 8' x 17' vault located six feet from the edge of the pool. The top of the vault is about 3.5 feet above ground. It is topped by a pitched roof. The proposed 574 square foot pool house/storage building would be constructed over the top of the vault, The proposed building would be located four feet from the pool basin rather than ten feet as required by code. There is no requirement for clearance around the pool basin. According to the hardcover calculations submitted with the building permit application,the property should have 24.38 percent hardcover in the 75-250 foot zone. The building permit calculations were based on there being 56,005 square feet of property in this zone when actually there is 52,133 square � feet. Also,in 1986 a pool was not considered hardcover. The hardcover in the 0-75 foot zone resulted from the pool being inadvertently placed too close to the lake and the house being placed closer to the lake than shown on the site plan. The Planning Commission should consider the following: � 1. Does this request satisfy the intent of the separation requirement to prevent overcrowding? The pool is below grade and the building is above grade. Although the pool building may not have negative visual impacts, another reason the City has enforced the ten foot separate rule for pools is the safety aspect. Structures less than ten feet from pools can be an attractive nuisance if someone decides to use it as a diving platform and misses the pool. 2. Is it reasonable to have a pool house/storage building? Pool houses with storage space are common accessory uses to pools. � PAGE 37