My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
05-23-2005 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
2005
>
05-23-2005 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/12/2023 8:51:07 AM
Creation date
1/12/2023 8:40:37 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
139
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).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
ii <br />H <br />) ■ <br />'i * <br />I <br />i <br />MINUTES OF THE <br />ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING <br />Moaday, May 9,2005 <br />7:00 o’clock p.ai. <br />(005*3091 Cathcrlae Sallas, Coatiaaed) <br />Sallas stated the fencing is on both sides of the property and extends almost to the lakeshore. <br />Murphy inquired whether the motion included removal of the fencing on both sides of the property. <br />White stated it does. <br />Welch stated he is opposed to the removal of the fencing on his side of the property. Welch stated if the <br />fence is removed, the rooftop deck should be removed. <br />Brad Olson stated they have requested that the rooftop deck be removed. <br />Mrs. Olson stated they would prefer the lower deck be left as is and the upper deck removed. <br />Barrett noted this is an after-the-fact variance request and that the Council probably would not have <br />granted a side yard seftnck variance. Barrett stated denial of the variance would be legitimate and that <br />there could be a trade-ofTby removing some of the other hardcover on the property. <br />Sallas stated she was not aware of the complaint about the deck at the time she purchased the property. <br />Barrett stated the issue for die Council to consider is what is good compensation with respect to the deck. <br />McMillan stated she would like a portion of the lower deck removed. <br />White withdrew kU <br />Jurgens stated this is an after-the-fact variance and that a structural engineer would be required to review <br />the deck. Jurgens suted the deck might need to be removed if it is not structurally sound. <br />Olson noted a variance was denied previously for a roof top deck because it was not considered <br />stru;turally m <br />McMillan moved, to approve AppHcattoa #05-3091,3035 North Shore Drive, graatlBg of an after- <br />the-fact lake aad side setback variances pending stmctnral review and approval of the deck aad <br />fhrther snb|ect to the reoMval of 104 feet of the grade-level deck to compensate for the <br />encroachments. <br />Sansevere inquired whether the deck should be removed to th« average lakeshore setback. <br />McMillan stated in her opinion the 104 square foot removal is just compensation for the encroachment. <br />MOTION DIED DUE TO LACK OF SECOND. <br />PAGE 12 <br />W
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.