Laserfiche WebLink
MEETING <br />1987 <br />TO: James Grabek, Mayor <br />Mark Bernhardson, City Administrator CITY w� iF(ry <br />Orono Council Members HIT t :`• vf.M <br />FROM: Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning 6 'Zoning Administrator <br />DATE: January 29, 1987 <br />SUBJECT: 41060 J.F. Fleischhacker, 2775 Shadywcod Read <br />Variance (Second Review) - Resolution <br />List of Exhibits <br />Exhibit A - Applicant's Revised Preferred (Scheme A` Proposal With <br />Correctee Hardcover Numbers <br />Exhibit B - Applicant's Ai. -nate (Scheme B) Substantially Placing <br />Deck Behind 7/ :back Line <br />Exhibit C - Council Minute% .n. 11-10-86 <br />Exhibit D - Memo 5 Exhibits of 11-4-86 <br />Exhibit E - Draft Resolution Per Exhibit B Above <br />Pertinent Facts: A -,rage 0-75' <br />0-75' 75-250' Setback Setback <br />Hardcover Hardcover Encroach. Encroach. <br />--------------------------------------------------- .-------------------------- <br />Existing 10 s.f. (0.138) 6253 s.f. (38.1%) 0' 0' <br />Scheme A 74 s.f. (1.08) 6322 s.f. (38.5%) 0' 5- <br />5-Scheme B 12 s.f. (O.lb%) 6177 s.f. (37.6%) 0' 3' <br />Discussion: <br />Applicant originally appeared before Planning Commisp'-„ in August <br />1986 proposing to r,dd a dick and stairs encroaching 20' into the 75' <br />setback zone, 10' into the average lakeshore setback :one and comprising <br />3.7% hardcover in the 0-75' zone. Planning Commission tabled it, <br />requesting applicant to revise his proposal to decrease the degree of <br />variances needed. <br />Applicant brought back a plan to Planning Commission in October with <br />only a 9.5' 0-75' encroachment, no average setback e,,croachment, 2.4% <br />hardcover in the 0-75' zone, with an insignificant increase in 75-250' <br />hardcover. Planning Commission recommended approval of that plan. <br />At the November 10, 1986 Council meeting, applicant was requested to <br />investigate further plans to further decrease the variances needed, and to <br />put the deck behind the 75' setback line if possible. Pursuant to that, <br />applicant noted to staff the inconsistency in location �f the 75' setb::k <br />line, which should have taken into account the 929.4' contour. He also <br />brought in a revised scheme (Scheme B1, putting all of the deck and all but <br />12 s.f. of the stairs within the 75-250' zone, but he notes lie would prefer <br />the November 10th plan (Scheme A). <br />