My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
08-12-1996 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
1996
>
08-12-1996 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/5/2023 11:53:52 AM
Creation date
9/5/2023 11:51:57 AM
Metadata
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
224
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
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION <br />MEETING HELD ON JULY 15, 1996 <br />(</2 - #2131 L?rry Karkela - Continued) <br />Smith asked if there were any extenuating circumstances which resulted in this deck being <br />constructed. Karkela said the existing lower level deck is accessed from a spiral staircase, <br />which is cumbersome to travel down, and therefore, it is only used w hen he has a large <br />number of guests The other option is to walk down a steep hill, which is also difficult <br />when carrying food, etc. The upper level had a walkway-type deck and was being <br />expanded to allow its dining use <br />Peterson asked about the 1984 permits when the walkway was approved but a deck was <br />not pan of the application Mabusth noted the inability of the 3' walkw ay deck to house a <br />table with chairs Mabusth added that the applicant is willing to remove portions of the <br />lower level deck and/or parking area to offset hardcover increase <br />There were no public comments. <br />Smith asked the applicant what he w as w illing to remove of the low er level deck in order <br />to gain the upper level deck Karkela said he was open to what was necessary to keep the <br />upper level deck but noted the complexity of remov ing sections of lower level deck <br />because of location of footings and need to maintain stability of the upper deck Karkela <br />added that the upper level deck was at the height of the roof lines of the neighboring <br />homes The neighbors view to the west was said to be downward toward the lakeside. <br />Trees separated his property from his other neighbor at the east. <br />Stoddard asked if there were any guidelines for mitigation Mabusth said that <br />determination was made by the Commission and applicant adding that the applicant was <br />aware of the structural excesses <br />The applicant suggested removing corner pieces from the lower deck. He was willing to <br />remove more hardcover Smith did not wish to take away from the driveway. <br />Lindquist suggested removing the length of the deck to maintain the same edging on both <br />decks Lhe applicant said he would prefer to cut the corners off from a style standpoint. <br />Karkela suggested removing 6' triangles of lower deck of 36 s f, which w ould result in a <br />reduction of 11 s f with the new deck. Smith noted that the hardcover excess was already <br />in existence prior to the new deck. The applicant then suggested to remove the front 2-3' <br />of deck to the footing area along with the triangular pieces from the two front corners <br />This would enable the applicant to maintain the current footings <br />Stoddard moved. Smith seconded, to approve Application #2131 based on the design as <br />outlined above of removing decking to the supports and comers Schroeder inquired why <br />the applicant waited from 1993 to 1996 to finish the project. Karkela said he had personal <br />matters which had required his attention Vote Ayes 5, Nays 1, Peterson, who <br />historically votes against allowing any average lakeshore setback variances.
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.