Laserfiche WebLink
To: Planning Commission Chairman Kelley <br />Orono Planning Commission Members <br />City Administrator Bernhardson <br />From: Jeanne A. Mabcsth, Building & Zoning Administrator <br />Date: July 12, 1988 <br />Subject: #1207 Gene and Catherine Scanlon 2815 Casco Point Road <br />- Variances - Third Review <br />List of Exhibits <br />Exhibit A - Planning Commission Notice of Action 6/21/88 <br />Exhibit B - Revised Survey <br />Exhibit C - Plan Drawing <br />Exhibit D - Elevation <br />Exhibit E - Aproximate Location of Hardcover to be Removed <br />Exhibit F - Jacobs Memo <br />Review of Variances Sought by Applicant <br />1. Section 10.22, Subdivision 1 (B) Lakeshore setback for structures - <br />Required = 75' <br />Original Shed = 0' (75' or 100% variance) <br />Proposed Shed = 24' (51' or 68% variance) <br />Original Deck = 15' (60' or 80% variance) <br />Proposed Deck = 24' (51' or 68% variance) <br />2. Section 10.22, Subdivision 2 Lakeshore hardcover- <br />0-75' setback area = 4,200 s.f. <br />Allowed = 0 s.f. <br />Original Hardcover = 249 s.f. or 6% (210 s.f. deck, 49 s.f. shed) <br />Proposed Hardcover = 165 s.f. or 3.9% (Shed located under deck not included <br />and stairs/safety landing of 149 s.f. excluded) <br />75-250' setback area = 9,600 .f. <br />Allowed = 2,400 s.f. or 25% <br />Existing = 4,200 s.f. or 43.7% <br />Proposed = 4,043 s.f. or 42.1% <br />Removal of 150 s.f. (52.5 s.f. adjacent to access stairs at rear of house <br />and 104.5 s.f. at northeast corner of residence, see staff sketch Exhibit <br />E) <br />Please note the 185 s.f. of additional hardcover to be removed within <br />applicants lakeshore yard has not been included in the above calculations <br />because they were not included in the original hardcover calculations <br />totaling 4,200 s.f. <br />Review of Application <br />At your June 20th meeting, all but one member of the Planning Commission <br />concettually approved the variance request of the applicant subject to <br />their submitting revised plans that clearly defined what the arplicant was <br />proposing within the guidelines of the Planning Commission directives. <br />