My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
02-16-2021 Planning Commission Minutes
Orono
>
Agendas, Minutes & Packets
>
Planning Commission
>
Minutes
>
2020-2029
>
2021
>
02-16-2021 Planning Commission Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/16/2021 9:07:35 AM
Creation date
3/16/2021 9:06:54 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
38
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
MINUTES OF THE <br />ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION <br />Tuesday, February 16, 2021 <br />6:00 o'clock p.m. <br />taken into consideration is on the house side of the deck, there is an asphalt roof part that comes out and <br />takes up a little portion of the deck. <br />Mr. Caldwell noted it takes up about a foot and they could probably remove that and possibly remove the <br />permanent grill and replace that. <br />Angie clarified it is still just a really narrow, tight area. <br />Mr. Caldwell said moving the stairs to go back instead of down towards the lake will also help make <br />room for a table and some chairs. <br />Ressler opened the public hearing at 6:13 p.m. <br />Karen Weathers, the Caldwell's neighbor next door approached the podium and wants the Planning <br />Commission to know they are supportive and it is a very narrow deck. She hopes the Planning <br />Commission will approve it. <br />Ressler closed the public hearing at 6:13 p.m. <br />Ressler asked Curtis for a clarification, as it looks like the stairs that were mentioned are in compliance <br />and that is not what is in question right now; generally, they are speaking about the lakeshore setback of <br />75 feet. <br />Curtis replied in the affirmative and said the side setback on this property is shown at 10 feet which is the <br />district setback. However, the lot is narrower than the district standard so they have that flexibility. <br />Although it is shown that there is a slight encroachment, that is not accurate; it meets the setback. <br />Ressler said the rest they need to deliberate is whether or not the Planning Commission feels comfortable <br />encroaching further in to the lakeshore setback inside the 75. He asked if he is reading it correctly that <br />right now, they are at 79.6. <br />Curtis replied yes that is correct. The existing deck is shown in the dotted rectangle within the proposed <br />deck. <br />Ressler said it undulates because of the shoreline. <br />Curtis said the 75 -foot setback does, yes. <br />Libby said the idea that Orono has a standard for the setback always becomes more complicated when <br />they have a meandering Lakeshore. Being this already had an existing encroachment into the ALS, he <br />does not see any practical difficulties involved in this, but there are practical matters of use that have been <br />explained. He tends to agree with Staff, he thinks this is something that is workable, especially with the <br />willingness to offset some of the hard surface issues. <br />If Kirchner understands correctly, Staff's recommendation is to approve average Lakeshore and hardcover <br />but denial of the variance within the proposed deck area, which would then be the extension or addition of <br />the deck area. As discussed previously he always struggles to further an encroachment and go beyond it <br />Page 3 of 38 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.