04-11-2005 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

EXHIBIT L City Planner, Janice J. Gundlach 2750 Keliy Parkway Orono. MN 55356 RECCIVEU OEC 0 3 ?004 city of orono CHy Planner. Janice J. Gunlach, November 30.2004 i am writing in regards to property located at 3534 Ivy Place. I have been to Staff several times. Planning and Zoning and the City Council with the same results. That I vras denied what I asked for. So, evidently, I must be wrong. I am having a real problem with the most unfair ordinance I have ever come into contact with. As you know, I have a conforming lot. But I also have 49% hardcover where you can build on the conforming lot. That is cutting 75 feet off from the lake, where there will be nothing on. But the ordinance says I can only have 25% hardcover in that designated area. That is house, garage, sidewalk, everything. Which amounts to approximately 2000 square feet. This is so unfair when you measure 75 feet off, 30 feet off of the back, and 10 feet off from each side. This does not leave much to build on and that is the 25% hardcover that we are talking about. So even though I cannot use the full lot for measurement to make tf.e 25% hardcover, I have to pay taxes on the full lot. This seems unfair. This ordinance is old and not reasonable anymore. If the percentages In the designated area were around 35% then it would not be necessary to measure the entire lot and you could build something that is reasonable In the designated area. The reason for the way I feel is because of the Hardship Rules. People come in with their non*conforming lot and they call it a Hardship, and in a lot of cases they receive up to 39% hardcover, even more in some cases. So. I am penalized for having a lot that informs. I am sure you have heard this before, especially from me. I want to live in Orono, in a decent home that fits my needs and one that is reasonable in size. I have an old homo I do not want to remodel. I want to cut down the hardcover on the area designated for building, not increase It. So the hardcover would go down to 35% or even 30%. I would like a homo with a bigger footprint so we would not have to climb stairs Moot of the living area would be on the main floor. I would tike to put this home on the area that is designated for building and I could meet all the setbacks and requirements. If something in ttie ordinance does not change, lots like mine would have a considerably less value because of being unable to build a proper house for the value of the lot. To n>e that Is a hardship. I guess I am asking for some kind of consideration with common sense involved. If this ordinance was making a positive difference I could understand it and obey it but It is not. I totally understand foe 75 foot rule, I also understand foe hardship rule, and they are both needed. I am asking that you do not penalize foe conforming lots, thinking that you are helping foe good of the lake, when non-conforming lots. In some cases, are filling up the entire lot with hardcover. I am not trying to be smart. I am trying to get my story across the only way I know how. I am asking for help other than the way wo have been approaching this problem. Please consider another ^nue we can explore that will make both parties agreeable to foe final result. Are there any changes that we can make to get to a fair resolution for both of us? I will come to a workshop meeting or whatever It takes to talk over this problem again Thank vou for your time. ' Ted Capra