Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION <br />MEETING HELD ON JULY 15, 1996 <br />• <br />( #2 - 92131 Larry Karkela - Continued) <br />Smith asked if there were any extenuating circumstances which resulted in this deck being <br />constructed. Karkela said the existing lower level deck is accessed from a spiral staircase, <br />which is cumbersome to travel down; and therefore, it is only used when he has a large <br />number of guests. The other option is to walk down a steep hill, which is also difficult <br />when carrying food, etc. The upper level had a walkway -type deck and was being <br />expanded to allow its dining use. <br />Peterson asked about the 1984 permits when the walkway was approved but a deck was <br />not part of the application. Mabusth noted the inability of the 3' walkway deck to house a <br />table with chairs. Mabusth added that the applicant is willing to remove portions of the <br />lower level deck and/or parking area to offset hardcover increase. <br />There were no public comments. <br />Smith asked the applicant what he was willing to remove of the lower level deck in order <br />to gain the upper level deck. Karkela said he was open to what was necessary to keep the <br />upper level deck but noted the complexity of removing sections of lower level deck <br />because of location of footings and need to maintain stability of the upper deck. Karkela <br />added that the upper level deck was at the height of the roof lines of the neighboring <br />• homes. The neighbors view to the west was said to be downward toward the lakeside. <br />Trees separated his property from his other neighbor at the east. <br />Stoddard asked if there were any guidelines for mitigation. Mabusth said that <br />determination was made by the Commission and applicant adding that the applicant was <br />aware of the structural excesses. <br />The applicant suggested removing corner pieces from the lower deck. He was willing to <br />remove more hardcover. Smith did not wish to take away from the driveway. <br />Lindquist suggested removing the length of the deck to maintain the same edging on both <br />decks. The applicant said he would prefer to cut the corners off from a style standpoint. <br />Karkela suggested removing 6' triangles of lower deck of 36 s.f., which would result in a <br />reduction of 11 s.f with the new deck. Smith noted that the hardcover excess was already <br />in existence prior to the new deck. The applicant then suggested to remove the front 2 -3' <br />of deck to the footing area along with the triangular pieces from the two front corners. <br />This would enable the applicant to maintain the current footings. <br />Stoddard moved, Smith seconded, to approve Application #2131 based on the design as <br />outlined above of removing decking to the supports and corners. Schroeder inquired why <br />the applicant waited from 1993 to 1996 to finish the project. Karkela said he had personal <br />• matters which had required his attention. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 1, Peterson, who <br />historically votes against allowing any average lakeshore setback variances. <br />2 <br />