My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
08-21-1995 Planning Commission Minutes
Orono
>
Agendas, Minutes & Packets
>
Planning Commission
>
Minutes
>
1990-1999
>
1995
>
08-21-1995 Planning Commission Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/10/2019 1:52:20 PM
Creation date
7/10/2019 1:52:18 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
30
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
• <br />MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION <br />MEETING HELD ON AUGUST 21, 1995 <br />(#10 - #2049 Fred Guttormson & Chic Dwight - Continued) <br />The applicants were present. <br />Gaffron reported the application was to replace an existing deck, along with the <br />construction of a screened porch under the deck. A walkout area would also be excavated <br />from what is now a split entry area. The existing deck is in poor condition. Replacement <br />would be done of the total foundation as footings have been found to depths less than the <br />frost line. This would all occur within the 0 -75' setback area and require hardcover and <br />average lakeshore setback variances. The residence is 42' from the lake, and the 8x24' <br />deck would be located 34' from the lake. Drainage on the property comes from the <br />mature trees toward the proposed screen porch area. It is questioned whether this could <br />be flattened out, retaining walls about 1' in height be constructed, or ground cover <br />established to aid the drainage. <br />A letter from the DNR was read into the minutes recommending denial of the application <br />based on the existing house being within 75' of the lake and proposed porch and deck <br />increasing the nonconformity of the house. The porch and deck would also be within the <br />37.5' shore impact zone. <br />0 Gaffron noted that the hardcover would be at 8.48 %, resulting in a minimum increase in <br />the hardcover from existing. It would, however, lend more permanency. <br />Two buildings have been removed as well as an 8' gravel driveway located in the 0 -75' <br />zone, which has not been revegetated. New gravel has been placed for the loop driveway. <br />The applicant said the property was overgrown and buildings were found to be <br />deteriorated. There is a tank on the property but the reason for it is unknown. During <br />clean up, the driveway to the lake was discovered. Two 20 -yard dumpsters were used to <br />remove debris from the yard and house. An outhouse sized building still exists by the <br />lakeside. <br />Peterson said the application has several issues. He felt the filling on the top dressing <br />down to the lake should meet approval. The accessory structure to the south should be <br />removed. It was felt the retaining walls would create problems and not solve any. <br />The applicant said she has seeded three times and erosion has washed it out. It is so <br />shaded that sod will not grow and thought a wall would help. It is the applicant's desire to <br />keep the property natural. <br />Peterson felt the sliding doors would meet his approval but found the deck and screened <br />porch were issues needing discussion. <br />13 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.