My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
02-19-03 Planning Commission Minutes
Orono
>
Agendas, Minutes & Packets
>
Planning Commission
>
Minutes
>
2000-2009
>
2003
>
02-19-03 Planning Commission Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/24/2012 9:32:41 AM
Creation date
2/24/2012 9:32:41 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
27
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).
View images
View plain text
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br /> Wednesday, February 19, 2003 <br /> 6:30 o'clock p.m. <br /> (#03-2865 KEVIN MANLEY, Continued) <br /> reasonable, and that existing road and parking conditions all support the hardcover <br /> variance, then staff would suggest three conditions be applied to any approval granted; <br /> 1. Applicant provide shrubbery between the parking area and lake to screen vehicles. <br /> 2. The parking area be limited to a depth of 25' measured from the edge of the traveled <br /> paved road, thus, yielding a 25-30' lake setback. <br /> 3. The shed next to the lake must be removed by a date certain to be established between <br /> Council and applicant, presumably as soon as the snow is gone. <br /> With regard to the lakeside deck in the west 0-75' zone, Gaffron pointed out that this <br /> 4.5'X12' deck was constructed during remodeling without zoning or building permit <br /> approval, constituting a 0-75' structure encroachment, an average setback encroachment, <br /> and excessive hardcover. The deck is merely 36' from the shoreline. Arguably, Gaffron <br /> stated that the deck was not shown on any plans or surveys used in approval of prior <br /> zoning applications. Although staff could confirm that a 160 s.f. deck existed in the past, <br /> Gaffron indicated that it was completely removed sometime prior to or during the <br /> remodeling process, and construction of the new deck had never been addressed. Since 42 <br /> s.f. of the deck is not over approved boulder walls and its additional hardcover yields a <br /> new proposed total of 1581.6 s.f. or 27% hardcover, a hardship statement should be <br /> requested by the Commission to warrant its existence. <br /> Gaffron pointed out that the deck currently serves a sliding glass door located 7-8' above <br /> grade, and if not approved, the applicant would be required to permanently block the door <br /> with a railing or other method for safety reasons. He added that the deck is at a location <br /> where it would have no significant impact on lake views enjoyed by the neighbor. <br /> With regard to the proposed deck between the garage and house in the 75-250' zone, <br /> Gaffron stated that the applicants are proposing a 266.5 s.f. deck south of the house and <br /> extending toward the garage, adjacent to the tunnel and 6' from the property line at its <br /> closest point. Gaffron asked what the intent of this deck was meant to be, and stated that he <br /> saw no hardship to support this aspect of the application. <br /> Once again, Gaffron stated that staff had found no hardship to support a hardcover <br /> variance for the deck on the south side of the house, and would recommend denial of that <br /> request. Furthermore, although the deck on the west side of the house would have minimal <br /> impact on lake views, staff believes there is no apparent hardship supporting the existence <br /> of the deck. Staff recommends denial of this request, and removal of the deck within 60 <br /> days, in addition to whatever measures are required by the Building Code to make the door <br /> safe. Gaffron pointed out that staff would support the hardcover variance for the gravel <br /> parking area, based on the lack of on-street parking in the neighborhood, and would <br /> recommend approval subject to the conditions noted earlier. <br /> PAGE 10 of 26 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.