04-18-2022 Planning Commission Packet

Home Browse Search

Seidel From: Dan Seidel • To: Melanie Curtis Cc: Helena Seidel;Neil Goodwin Subject: FW: Stonewood"s Application-LA22-000012 Date: Thursday,April 14,2022 9:44:06 AM Attachments: image002.onq image003.onq From: Dan Seidel Sent:Thursday, April 14, 2022 9:15 AM To: Helena Seidel <Helena@BankersTitleMN.com> Subject: RE: Stonewood's Application - LA22-000012 Good morning Melanie We are Helena and Daniel Seidel and we reside at 3015 Casco Point Road. We would be the neighbors next to the proposed South Parcel on the drawings submitted by Stonewood, LLC. We are opposed to the proposed replatting of the Hartzell Addition. First,the replatting creates a non-conforming lot next to our lot. In order to have the new plat approved,we believe Stonewood would need to receive a Variance in order to split the current parcel into 3 lots. Stonewood would need to prove a Practical Difficulty in order for their plan to be approved. Based on a review of the standards for approving Practical Difficulties,Stonewood does not meet these standards. 2 large homes currently sit on the property and those homes could be rebuilt or refurbished without any difficulty. • Second,the City of Orono had good public policy reasons for setting the minimum lot size when it was originally established. Overcrowding with more boats and more docks is always a concern on Lake Minnetonka. Increased hard cover on the lake threatens the water quality of the Lake. Our area of Casco Point Road has had drainage problems over the years and this project will no doubt effect runoff and drainage. Third,there is a neighborhood perception that the development and building rules are not laws but mere suggestions to potential developers and builders. The perception is that the rules don't matter because a Variance will just be granted. The integrity of the building laws and land use laws is important to homeowners especially considering the investment that lakeshore owners have in their properties. Homeowners (taxpayers) should be able to rely on the development and building laws rather than be fearful that excessive variances will be issued to erode the current laws. Lastly, if the replatting is approved, it will create a new vacant lot (the North Parcel). Suddenly, a question arises as to what the set-back rules are for the new homes being built. Playing it out, if the plan is approved and the current homes are demolished, we have been told the home on the middle lot could be built to the 75 foot setback line. This would be an injustice to the homeowner(Goodwins) to the North of the Hartzell Addition. Also, once that home is built to 75 feet,we are sure the builder of the lot next to us will seek variances to build next to the new house on the middle lot and thus greatly impeding our lake views and diminishing the value of our • property. We strongly encourage the Planning Commission and City Council to consider this domino