Laserfiche WebLink
' <br />#05-3129 <br />iaiy 10,2005 <br />Page 4 of4 <br />Staff finds a haidship to allow a house to be rebuilt on the existing lot. The lot is <br />considered a legal lot of record and can therefore, be built on without meeting the one <br />acre minimum requirement if a variance is granted. A house currently exists on the <br />substandard area and width lot and has existed since 1955. The lot was also legally <br />created in accordance with the platting process. The proposal for the new residence <br />meets all Zoning Ordinance requirements, with the exception of the side street setback <br />variance request The buildable area of the lot exceeds 5,000 s.f., v^ch will allow for a <br />home to be constructed without variances other than area and width. The lot is also <br />sewered. Staff would recommend approval of the lot area and lot width variance as the <br />lot is a legal lot of record, has stood on its own since 1955, and the current applicant is <br />not able to acquire additional land to become conforming without making the adjacent <br />neighbors more non-conforming. <br />However, staff would recommend denial of a 23* setback to Rest Point Lane. Although <br />recognizing that the existing buildings do not meet a 35* setback, there is no hardship <br />inherent to the land, from staffs perspective, to grant a variance. There is adequate <br />buildable area to design a home of similar size with a 36* width within the buildable <br />envelope. The lot lends itself to a longer, narrower home as opposed to the applicant*s <br />propos^ fooq>rint, and many homes are built on the City*s lakeshore at a 30* width <br />wit^ 50* lots. Further, with fewer than 40 lake access corridors on Orono*s 40 miles of <br />Lake Minnetonka shoreline, the City*s long-term future interests are best served by <br />denying encroachments that would tend to visually narrow these corridors. <br />Issues for ConsMcration <br />1. Is there a hardship to allow a setback variance to Rest Point Lane? <br />2. Is there adequate buildable area within the required setbacks? <br />3. Is the desire to maximize views to the lake reason enough to allow a setback <br />variance? <br />4. Does the amount of undeveloped right-of-way provide a hardship to grant a setback <br />variance, even though adequate buildable area exists within the required setbacks? <br />5. Ate there any other issues or concerns vrith this application? <br />Staff Rcconniendation <br />Staff recommends umroval of the lot area and width variances; however denial of the <br />side street setback variance as the lot lends itself to a longer narrower bouse, and the <br />City*s gotais in maintaining open space, especially along lake access corridors, would be <br />compromised if the variance was granted.