Laserfiche WebLink
ROLL <br />MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br />HELD JANUARY 19, 1993 <br />The Orono Planning Commission met on the above date with the <br />fo I I ow Ing members present: Acting PI ann i ng Comm Issi on Cha Ir <br />Maureen Bel lows, Charles Schroeder, Candace Rowlette, Jeff Johnson <br />and Ed Cohen. Stephen Peterson was absent. The fol lowing <br />represented the City Staff: Zoning Administrator Jeanne Mabusth, <br />Septic Manager Stephen Weckman, and City Recorder Teri Naab. <br />Edward Callahan, Gabriel Jabbour and JoEI len Hurr were present. <br />Chair Bel lows cal led the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. <br />(#1) #1627 SAMUEL A. MCCLOUD, <br />BIG ISLAND RECORD LOT 22 _\VARIANCE - <br />CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING 7:00 -7:25 P.M. <br />David Anderson was present for the application. <br />Mabusth reviewed the former application for the Planning Commission <br />that involved a lot I ine rearrangement In March 1991, and an after-· <br />the-fact variance dealing with decking, retaining walls, and <br />extensive stairways, which were constructed some time after the <br />1987 storm. She noted 40 s.f. of the deck attached to the existing <br />residence and al I decking near the lake are within the 0-75' zone. <br />Proposed hardcover with In the I akeshore has been reduced and <br />retaining wal Is remain, which the appl leant proposes to minimize <br />the 3.2 to 5 visual Impact with plantings. The applicant proposes <br />3.2% hardcover in the 0-75' zone versus 10.8% existing. <br />Anderson reviewed the types of p I anti ngs he proposes for the <br />property. <br />Cohen asked what comprises the 3.2% hardcover proposed. <br />Mabusth explained prior to the 1987 storm, the property had <br />approximately 1% 0-75' hardcover which comprised a stairway to the <br />I ake necessary because of the steep s I opes. The 3. 2% proposed <br />hardcover includes the 40 s.f. of deck attached to the dwelling. <br />Chair Bel lows expressed concern about al lowing the retaining wal Is <br />to remain, which In essence is the "bones" for the decking, and <br />questioned what is to stop the appl leant from rebui I ding the deck <br />areas. She asked how the bul I ding inspector felt about the <br />plantings versus the ral I Ing along the retaining wal Is. <br />Mabusth stated plantings as such have been approved before in other <br />locations. <br />1