08-22-2005 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MS-3129 Jvly 18,2605 P«|t4or4 Staff finds a hardship to allow a house to be rebuilt on the existing lot. The lot is considered a legal lot of record and can therefore, be built on without meeting the one acre minimum requirement if a variance is granted. A house currently exists on the substandard area and width lot and has existed since 1955. The lot was also legally created in accordance with the platting process. The proposal for the new residence meets all Zoning Ordiiuuice requirements, with the exception of the side street setback variance request The buildable area of the lot exceeds 5,000 s.f., which will allow for a home to be ccHistructed without variances other than area and width. The lot is also sewered. Staff would recommend ai^roval of the lot area and lot width variance as the lot is a l^al lot of record, has stood on its own since 1955, and the current applicant is not able to acquire additional land to become conforming without making the adjacent neighbors more non-conforming. However, staff would recommend denial of a 23 ’ setback to Rest Point Lane. Although recognizing that the existing buildings do not meet a 35’ setback, there is no hardship inherent to the land, from staff’s perspective, to grant a variance. There is adequate buildable area to design a home of similar size with a 36 ’ width within the buildable envelope. The lot lends itself to a longer, narrower home as opposed to the applicant’s proposed foo^trint, and many homes are built on the City’s lakeshore at a 30’ width wittin 50* lots. Further, with fewer than 40 lake access corridors on Orono’s 40 miles of Lake Minnetonka shoreline, the City’s long-term future interests are best served by den3ring encroachments that would tend to visually narrow these corridors. Issues for Consideration 1. Is there a hardship to allow a setback variance to Rest Point Lane? 2. Is there adequate buildable area within the required setbacks? 3. Is the desire to maximize views to the lake reason enough to allow a setback variance? 4. Does the amount of undeveloped right-of-way provide a hardship to grant a setback variance, even though adequate buildable area exists within the required setbacks? 5. Are there any other issues or concerns with this application? Staff Rocomniendation Staff recommends approval of the lot area and width variances; however denial of the side street setback variance as the lot lends itself to a longer narrower house, and the City’s goals in maintaining open space, e^)ecially along lake access corridors, would be compromised if the variance was granted. V V t-. -i- ■'* I Hill Unnanroii i iftm —