My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
06-17-1985 Planning Packet
Orono
>
Agendas, Minutes & Packets
>
Planning Commission
>
Packets
>
1980-1989
>
1985 Planning Packets
>
06-17-1985 Planning Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/1/2022 2:02:53 PM
Creation date
12/1/2022 1:45:31 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
159
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
t. <br />#876 Randy Asplund <br />Page 3 <br />June 14, 1985 <br />3444 Eastlake Street <br />Applicant has been ordered to remove the concrete patio by the end of <br />July, allowing time to resolve the patio issue. Applicant wishes to <br />install, in the same location as the existing concrete patio, a <br />floating deck. His proposal is to create a movable deck platform <br />which would sit directly on the surface with no footings, which would be <br />permeable, and which could, if necessary, be underlain by a sand bed so <br />that all water falling on the deck would be absorbed under the deck. <br />Staff would request your recommendation on these questions: <br />1. Would this type of deck be considered as a structure? <br />2.Would the fact that this is to be located in the 0-75’ <br />setback be a problem, in that it has the appearance of <br />structure and could be underlain with something <br />impermeable with little trouble? <br />Remember that the recent cases where the council has allowed decks as <br />non-hardcover have been such that: <br />A. The deck is attached to the house? <br />D. The deck is a permanent structure which can't be <br />readily moved; <br />C. The decks approved were within a foot of the surface and <br />enclosed with side panels so that no plastic can be <br />easily placed under them in the future; and <br />D.In only one case has a deck such as this been allowed to <br />encroach on the 0-75' setback and this was for an <br />existing house, not new construction. The Council has <br />stated that they would need to see a hardship to allow a <br />detached deck such as that proposed. <br />Staff would recommend that a flat, low level permanent attached deck be <br />constructed that will minimize the encroachment into the 75' zone and <br />which will meet the non-hardcover deck standards which have been <br />approved in previous applications. Note that no hardcover <br />calculations have been submitted for this property, but a cursory <br />review indicates it is around the 25 percent limit. <br />1
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.