Laserfiche WebLink
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION <br />MINUTES FOR APRIL 17,2000 <br />(#2564 William Dampier, Continued) <br />Stoddard commented he tikes the efforts the Applicant is taking to comply with the 15 percent <br />structural coverage. Stoddard inquired whether the deck could be shifted over to the left and brought <br />down lower to address some possible safety issues due to elimination of the railing. <br />Dampier stated his only access to the lakeside section of his property is through a narrow section <br />that exists in that area. Dampier stated he has already lost two trees as a result of the big storm <br />that occurred in this area several years ago and he would like to avoid losing additional trees. <br />Stoddard suggested the Applicant consult with an arborist about the placement of fill in the area of <br />the trees. <br />Dampier stated he has spoken with a landscape architect who has indicated the trees will survive <br />with the amount of fill he is proposing in this area. <br />Hawn commented in her view raising the elevation of the ground level is a contrived solution and <br />defeats the purpose of the ordinance. Hawn stated in her view the amount of mass being suggested <br />with this latest proposal is actually greater than what currently exists and would also place the mass <br />closer to the adjoining neighbor. Hawn suggested the Applicant consider a two-level deck with a <br />stairway. Hawn stated the Planning Commission needs to have a map depicting the proposed <br />changes to the deck and ground level. <br />Dampier inquired whether the Planning Commission would have any objection to the deck being <br />removed. <br />Hawn indicated s^e would not. <br />Dampier reiterated if the deck is removed, he would be left with bare ground level in this area. <br />Hawn stated it is her feeling the Applicant could still have a deck in this location. <br />Lindquist inquired whether a portion of the deck could be removed. <br />Dampier stated he would rather remove the entire deck than a portion of the d^:ck. Dampier stated <br />if the deck is lowered, he will be endangering some of the trees in the area. Dampier stated due to <br />the costs he has already incurred, he is committed to this project, noting he would be willing to <br />remove the deck if there was no other choice. <br />Lindquist stated it appears the Planning Commission is looking for the Applicant to eliminate at <br />least a portion of the deck, noting the planter system does add more mass to the property. <br />Berg commented in her view the Planning Commission should take into consideration what the <br />Applicant will be left w'fh if the deck is removed. <br />Hawn stated in her view an acceptable plan can be reached <br />Dampier commented in his opinion he has compromised on this proposal as much as possible. <br />Lindquist remarked the Applicant will need to readdress the issues relating to the deck once more. <br />Berg stated the Planning Commission does not have the ability to design a deck for the Applicant. <br />Berg stated the Applicant will also need to lock at the impacts the removal of the deck will have on <br />Page 12