Laserfiche WebLink
TO: <br />FROM: <br />DATE: <br />Chair Peterson and Orono Park Commission <br />Ron Moose, City Administrator <br />Michael P. Gaf&on, Asst Planning & Zoning Administrator <br />June 12,1996 <br />SUBJECT: #2137 William and Susan Dunkley, 2709 Walters Port Lane • Variance <br />Continuation of Public Hearing <br />Zoning Dbtrict: LR*1B, Single Family Residential, 1 acre sewered. <br />Application: Request for average lakeshore setback, lakeshore setback, 0-75* hardcover and lot <br />coverage varianres to allow conversion of existing deck at southeast end of residence to a room <br />kidition. Note; this item was tabled at your May meeting to give the applicants an opportunity to <br />redesign the addition in order to decrease the visual impact (i.e. lower the room, or move it to a <br />location on the face of the house opposite the lake) or consider relocating the spa into the basement. <br />Applicants have submitted a revised plan for your consideration. <br />List of Exhibits <br />A - Existing/Original Proposal/Revised Proposal Elevation Views <br />B - Proposed Cross Section/Floor Plan/End Elevation <br />C - Notice of Planning Commission Action 5/28/96 <br />D - Neighbor Acknowledgments Submitted 5/16/96 <br />E - Memo and Exhibits of 5/15/96 <br />Revised Plan <br />Applicants' designer, Carl Smith, has revised the proposed addition to lower it slightly and <br />incorporate a shed roof rather than an extension of the main roof of the house. The revised plan is <br />272 s.f as compared to the original proposal of 271 s.f, as compared to the existing deck at 295 s.f. <br />The 10' side setback will not be encroached. <br />As noted in the May 15th memo, the proposal results in a slight hardcover decrease in the 0-75' zone, <br />and will still constitute an encroachment of the average lakeshore setback, an increase in lot coverage <br />by structures from 15.6% to 16.7%, and constitute added structure less than 75' from the lake. <br />Issues for Consideration <br />1. Does the proposed revision address Planning Commission's concerns?