My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
02-17-1998 Planning Commission Minutes
Orono
>
Planning Commission
>
1998
>
02-17-1998 Planning Commission Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/10/2019 2:49:29 PM
Creation date
7/10/2019 2:49:27 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
26
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).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION <br /> MEETING HELD ON FEBRUARY 17, 1998 <br /> _ - <br /> {#11 #2335 Lawrence Molsather and Linda Sallee Continued) <br /> Lindquist informed the applicants that he did not believe additional hardcover in the 0-75' <br /> would be approved noting removal of plastic was not an option and would be required to <br /> be removed. He said from comments made, the Commission was willing to trade a <br /> portion of the deck in one area for extension in another without adding to the structural <br /> coverage. Bressler noted that any trade would add to hardcover because the deck would <br /> extend beyond the overhang. McMillan said the attempt was to gain a functional deck. <br /> Lindquist said he could not support a request for additional hardcover in the 0-75' setback. <br /> Stoddard said he would approve the application as submitted. <br /> Molsather questioned whether exceptions can be made as that is the purpose of variances. <br /> McMillan informed him that since a deck existed, he would be allowed to reconstruct the <br /> deck using the existing amount of decking. Stoddard noted that the code requirements <br /> not allowing structure in the 0-75' setback did not exist at the time the house was <br /> constructed. He felt the deck is very narrow and not functional as it exists. He felt the <br /> applicant had the right to replace the deck and reconfigure it. <br /> Stoddard moved to approve Application#2335 to add a deck subject to variances <br /> including average lakeshore setback, 0-75' hardcover, structural coverage, and lakeshore <br /> setback, with limiting the additional deck to 221 s.f. The applicant would be required to <br /> remove all plastic under rock in the two areas under the house and by the lakeshore. This <br /> motion would allow a deck 8'wide along the length of the house. <br /> The motion failed for lack of a second. <br /> Molsather said he would have agreed to Stoddard's motion. Sallee said the proposed deck <br /> would not change the look of the house but only add to its usefulness. McMillan informed <br /> them that she did not second the motion as she would have needed to see the deck design. <br /> Lindquist said the applicant may be able to take the same amount of deck as exists and <br /> reconfigure it. He felt no additional amount of deck would be approved. He asked if the <br /> applicant would like to table the application for further review or move the application <br /> forward to Council. <br /> McMillan said she would agree to allowing some additional square footage to gain a <br /> functional deck for the applicants. <br /> Smith questioned how much of an increase would be supported. The proposal is for 3% <br /> increase. Lindquist said he would not favor that increase. <br /> Berg was informed that the purpose of the deck is to enjoy the lake and enable the <br /> • applicants to clean the gutters. <br /> 22 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.