10-11-1993 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

TO:Mayor Callahan and Orono Councilmembers Ron Moorse. City Administrator FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Jeanne A. Mabusth. Building & Zoning Administrator COUNCIL MEEnm Ociober 7. 1993 <1^1857 James Stinson. 2623 Casco Point Road - Variances OCT 1 1 1993 CITY OF ORONO Additional Exhibits J - Applicant ’s Sketch of Average Lakeshore Setback K - Applicant ’s Addendum for Amended Proposal L - Ma/ilyn Thomas Letter (Neighbor to the South) M - Marquardt Letter (Neighbor to the North) Nl-4 - Photos/Description Brief Review of Application The proposal before the Planring Commission included a 12’xl8’ (actual extension from proposed structure is 11 1/2’) principal structure addition to the lakeside of the residence and the reconstruction of a 12’x21’ deck adjacent to that addition. The existing deck is at 10’ and the new addition would have extended 11/2’ beyond the front line of the principal structure requiring an average lakeshore setback, a side setback and hardcover v .riances. Hardcover exists at 3,907 s.f. or 50.8%. Staff observed landscape areas underlain with plastic on the property that were not included in the hardcover facts. The additional 1 1/2’ expansion into the lakeshore yard resulted in 59 s.f. of new structural hardcover. The Planning Commission members reviewed the hardcover improvements to determine if there were nonessential improvements on the property to be considered for removal excluding the consiucration of landscape areas underlain with plastic as plastic underliners were to be removed. There appeared to be no other areas of hardcover improvements suitable for removal. The shared parking area within street yard is needed for off street parking and for backing out maneuvers on to busy roadway. Other nonstructural improvements were walkways found at a minimum width providing access to property along steeper elevation. It was also noted there was no hardcover within the 0-75’ setback area. The major concern for the Planning Commission was the expansion of the principal structure addition into the average lakeshore setback noting that the location of houses further north and south of this property were located closer to the lake and that with this improvcmcni the adjacent homes could expand with principal structure additions closer to the lake without die need of variances. There is no encroachment into the lakeshore protected area. The Planning Commission was concerned that the approval of this average lakeshore setback variance would create a chain of reaction of improvements closer to the lake. The Planning Commission s representative may be asked to e.xpand on this concern. i