10-18-1993 Planning PacketC - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANMNi; COMMISSION MEETING HELD OCTOBER 18. 1993 (#5) ALLEN AND KATHLEEN BAKKE - CONT. Nolan asked ahiui the intricate pipe structure on the roof. Bakke explained it uas for solar heating of the fKxd. Peterson asked about the fence to the back of the property shown on the survey that indicates it is 2* over the lot line. Bakke stated he would move it within his line although the neighbor said there was no problem to leave it where it was. l^Merson thought the deck should be approved since it was done so long ago but the fence should be moved to comply with the lot line. The other fence had already been removed. Schroeder asked if there were any other removals possible since there is still an excess of hardcover. Gattron explained that in the 250-500' zere from the lake, only 30% of the property is allowed to be in hard surface which includes Juveways, sidewalks, retaining w'alls, landscaped areas underlain with plastic or fabric, etc. He did not think there was any way to reduce hardcover other than removing some of the driveway or the existing decks. 32% hardcover probably existed prior to the deck addition, now 35% exists. Bakke stated the turnaround w.ts not necessary as they were able to back out. I'he shed currently occupies that space but w ill be moved so this portion of paved area could be removed. Smith asked about any precedents being set regarding after-the-fact variances for decks. Peteison felt that, in this case, the deck construction is so old it is difficult to deal with but otherwise these after-the-fact variances should be dealt with very carefully. Smith did not want it to appear that as a violation becomes older, it may be overlooked. It was moved by Nolan, seconded by Berg, to approve Application /i'lSTQ subject to the removal of the shed, removal of the backup apron in the driveway as drawn and moving the fence so it no longer encroaches the neighboring property. Ayes 5, nays 1. Planning Commission members agreed there should be an after-the-fact variance application fee paid and after-the-fact building permit fee. Smith referred to an earner application (Sieffs) which was tabled because the Commission did not feel they could appt-ove extensive decking. Although the Bakke decking is older, she did not feel that time should make a difference in the approach to the application. Nolan felt there were differences with the Sieff application such as; 1 . fhe Sitjff s had very intense hardcover/decking - probably twice tliat as Bakke ’s. 1