03-16-2020 Planning Commission Packet

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday,February 18,2020 6:00 p.m. Thiesse said he is struggling and is irritated with what happened. He cannot see leaving the deck there when the owner requested a variance for the rest of it and told the City they were going to remove it. He cannot tell them to take off their siding and make it look like it used to because it is an improvement to the neighborhood and there is no benefit for anybody other than to penalize them for doing something they should not have done. He does not know what the answer is. He does not consider the deck a dock starter. A dock starter is down at the water that you leave in the bank. He does not think he would vote to put it back to where it was but is struggling with what it should be. Ressler noted if it's not affixed to the house,there's an argument that it is a dock,not a deck. He asked if the City has any governing rules or regulations regarding the size of the dock. Curtis said it's landward of the 929.4' elevation,which means the ordinary high-water level of the lake. It becomes the City's jurisdiction; and they don't allow decks or large,wide docks on land. Thiesse noted typically you don't have a dock above the high-water level landward of it. Curtis added it doesn't matter if it's freestanding or affixed to the building. Gettman said he was trying to see whether it was reasonable to narrow the decking area to the dock width to bring it up to the door and then, in essence,have non-decking similar to what they had before. Bollis said he tends to agree with Staff. It is clearly not a dock because of the location and the width of it regardless of how it is built. Cosmetically, it looks much better than it did. He asked what the definition of"in-kind" is and whether it's the gable that is determining that. He would be okay with leaving the design of the building like it is but eliminating the deck structure. Erickson said looking at the facts brought him back to 1979,when he bought his first house on the lake in the City of Woodland. He relayed his experience when making changes to that house. In the existing dock regulations, a seasonal dock is defined, and part of the definition is if you can remove it without power tools or heavy equipment,which is the case in this situation. He has shared Thiese's concerns about people doing things that are different than what they said the first time,but in this case it's a small cosmetic improvement which is endorsed by the neighbors and also a justifiable argument for a seasonal dock use. He noticed in the application they have offered to pull it up when it's not in use,which also demonstrates its ability to do that. He referenced an area in a photo and indicated they may have used non-dock construction methods there but that the commission does not know for sure. It is clear the entire section that faces the lake uses dock construction. He is comfortable with calling it that, and he would support a variance to allow for that. Libby stated he would like to come up with a constructive remedy for something that is obviously a problem. He tends to agree with Staff,the variance should not be granted according to Section 78-123. There were missteps or misjudgments that were made by the contractor and property owner,and these situations could have been avoided if the original plan had not been amended and had been abided to. Ressler said he appreciates the clarification as far as how that structure gets viewed based on the water table and elevations. He is not a proponent of approving it as applied today. He noted the roof redesign was not higher than the preceding roof and is esthetically pleasing. The chimney exceeds the roof line. The decorative pillars in the entryway encroaches farther lakeward and he is not in support of that. They have denied less encroachments than this. The deck/dock was initially approved with it to be removed, Page 4 of 30