Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OP THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OP JANUARY 21, 1985 PAGE 8 <br />#886 RAGATZ (CONT) David Kirscht noted that the deck would not be a visual <br />intrusion from the neighboring properties or from the lake. <br />Kirscht noted that one of the neighboring decks extends <br />farther towards the lake than the one Ragatz is proposing. <br />I <br />Rovegno told the Planning Jomn ission that even if they solved <br />the hardcover problem witn a new innovative method, the City <br />would still have to deal with the deck as a structure <br />encroaching i nto the 0-75 ' lakeshore setback zone. Rovegno <br />noted that one could argce that there is a non-encroachment <br />if the hardcover is solved. <br />CounciImember Frahm stated that in prior applications, the <br />City never got past the hardcover problem to even address tKin <br />encroachment issue. Frahm stated that his main problems <br />with decking within the 0-75* setback zone was hardcover and <br />impeding the neighbors views. <br />Rovegno moved, Sime seconded, to approve the Ragatz variance <br />application based on the following findings: <br />1.Deck appears that it could be constructed without <br />creating any hardcover subject to the findings of <br />Council and staff on the Krutzig application. <br />2.Construction of the deck would not create problems wi*? <br />the view of the abutting property owners (staff to check <br />to see if railing will interfere). <br />3.Deck extends only as far towards the lake as the property <br />next door's house. <br />4.Mature box elder trees on the southern side of the <br />property makes the placement of the deck impossible <br />along the side of the property and also would be against <br />the neighbors wishes to have the deck placed on the <br />southern side. Neighbors to the southern side of the <br />property do not meet the current setback standards. <br />5.Applicant has removed concrete (between 100-250 sf) <br />within 28' of the lakeshore. <br />Approval subject to the following conditions: <br />1. Application approved only if a positive finding is made <br />by the Council to consider decking as non-ha.”dcover. <br />2. Deck may never be enclosed. <br />Motion, Ayes (3), Nays (0).