My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
09-11-1989 - Agenda Packet City Council - regular meeting
Orono
>
City Council
>
1989
>
09-11-1989 - Agenda Packet City Council - regular meeting
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/12/2026 10:57:02 AM
Creation date
7/28/2025 11:51:08 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Administration
Admin Doc Type
Agenda Packet City Council
Section
City Council
Subject
regular meeting
Document Date
9/11/1989
Retention Effective Date
7/28/2025
Retention
Permanent After File Date
Protection
Public
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.
/
447
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
ahr���r� .�I;iit�s;�,► <br />A r <br />Zoning Fill #14 � <br />September 8 ' 1 4CYJ <br />Page 2 of 3 <br />In this case, the remaining foundation walls abut a steep <br />slope and cannot be filled in, so that the rear foundation wall <br />will be relatively visible from the lake. <br />Applicant constructed a deck using a portion of this <br />foundation wall, over the former footprint of the boat house. <br />The deck is at grade at o.ie side and about 8-10' above grade on <br />the lake side. The deck has a railing to make it safe. If the <br />deck wasn't there, some sort of railing or fence would be needec, <br />at the top of the bank at the foundation wall, to make it safe. <br />Planning Commission Recommendation - <br />At their August 21st meting, the Planning Commission <br />reviewed the request and voted 5-0 to recommend partial approval. <br />The :Tanning Commission recommends denial of the after--thu--fact <br />,�•azianre for the deck, finding that such a structure would not <br />likely be approved even if requested before -the -fact. The <br />Planning Commission felt that the previously existing boat: house <br />structure did not justify construction of a deck to replace it. <br />At the same time, the Planning Commission recommended approval of <br />the existing and proposed retaining wall construction stipulating <br />that the pre-existing concrete foundation wall remain in place <br />but that a fence or suitable safety barrier be errected above it. <br />DNR Proposed ;rules - <br />The requirement for removal of this deck would be generally <br />consistent with past City policy and practice. Staff does feel <br />obligated to make the Council aware of proposed DNR rules <br />regarding accessory structures at the lakeshere. These rules are <br />merely a recommendation, and arc merely proposed as a model <br />ordinance for cities to adopt. However, those rules would allow <br />an accessory detached deck similar to the applicant's deck, to be <br />constructed under the following conditions: <br />1. Maximum height above grade - 81. <br />2. Maximum footprint area - 250 square feet. <br />3. Setback from the ordinary high water level must be at <br />least 10'. <br />4. Treat the structure -uce visibility as viewed frcm <br />public- waters, using -t_ cation, topography, increased <br />setbacks, color or . her methods (assuming summer. leaf -on <br />Conci,-!,on5 ) . <br />5. Cannot be plumbed. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.