Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br />ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION <br />Tuesday, February 18, 2020 <br />6:00 p.m. <br />and that would have been a good time to have this discussion and deliberation to clarify things. In <br />retrospect it makes it more difficult. If the structure that is more lakeward were to be removed and <br />exceeding the previous roofline height as far as the actual building is concerned, he would be more <br />supportive. If the footprint of the deck were to be reduced as is defined today, he could be agreeable. He <br />looked at the LMCD standards for sunpads, which is the closest thing he could come up with if it was in <br />the water elevations, and that is defined as 8 by 12, 96 square feet. A 25.4 width which is 3 3/4 - 4 feet <br />out, that may be something that would make it more agreeable. He is opposed to how it is applied today, <br />but he would be in support if those things were being amended. <br />Erickson stated he felt he and Ressler were on similar paths as far as some reduction in the deck area <br />might make it work. <br />Ressler noted his feedback is the deck area reduction as well as a not -encroaching structure lakeward and <br />exceeding the previous roof line. The gable is not adding square footage and is not living quarters; it is <br />more decorative and is not encroaching on any viewpoint from the previous structure. <br />Thiesse asked if Ressler wanted the motion to deny and the feedback to be just the deck, or if the <br />projection of the door and gable into the lakeward area should be removed also. <br />The Commissioners and Staff discussed the location of the gable and whether it was encroaching. <br />Ressler said the motion could include to not exceed roof line or structure and to not exceed any structure <br />above the previous elevation and also a reduction in deck but allow some sort of use ability for that deck. <br />Erickson asked if the Chair would consider a motion to grant the variances subject to the limitations. <br />Ressler said Staff could help entertain that. <br />Barnhart said Staff would prefer the Commission would make a recommendation based on the <br />application. The comments made reflect the thought process which will be helpful to the City Council but <br />the motion should reflect the application. <br />Ressler asked Staff what the next steps would be, if the Commission were to deny the application with <br />that feedback, for the applicant. <br />Barnhart said the Commission is acting on the application they have been shown. The applicant could <br />hear the commission's feedback in terms of concern with the chimney, concern with the gable that <br />encroaches lakeward, the size of the deck or hardcover level. They could propose modifications to the <br />City Council to see if they could gather some approval from that standpoint. <br />Ressler said the cleaner, easier way no matter how it goes to the City Council is to deny it as applied with <br />the feedback that's been given unless there's a different opinion. <br />Erickson noted his feedback would not include any concern about any of the cosmetic improvements <br />made to the structure. The stone added to the bottom, the gable, the chimney represent both structural and <br />cosmetic improvements and he does not have any concern about granting variances for those items. He is <br />ready to support the necessary variance to extend the dock out to the lake. <br />Page 5 of 30 <br />