06-09-2003 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

An example of this approach exists on our neighbors' property, 1270 Spruce Lane. In 2000 the city granted a variance request for hardcover equal to 46% within the 75' to 250' area for this property. We feel that this density exceeds what is reasonable for this site, and we would n^ like to continue this pattern of overbuilding. Gerda and I wish to build an adequate retirement home by joining the two lots. We have discus;jed our needs for our new home with our designer and they have developed the plan before you. (See Diagram of Proposal U2, Sheet #5 and sketch floor plan of attached supporting documents.) We have met with the City and reviewed these plans on two occasions, each time we have had our plans redesigned to reduce the size of the home and hardcover. We feel that the design of the home as it is now will adequately meet our needs. As we age we fmd it necessary and desirable to live on a single level of the home. We therefore have asked to have a home with a master bedroom on the first floor. Additionally we have a very active extended family that come to visit us often. We are the envy of many grandparents. Our visiting family however, requires sufficient space for our grandchildren to play while we supervise them. For this reason, we have also designed the home with a Family Room on the first floor. By removing the existing home on Lot 3 to build our new home, we will removing 800 square feet of hardcover (or an area of 20'x40') from the lakcfront 0 ’-75' zone. By pulling our home close to the front setback, we have sited the home nearly 120' from the lakefront. This will allow for substantial additional surface area for nm off to be absorbed prior to its reaching the shoreline. In order to compensate for square footage/hard cover demands of the first floor, we have located our garage tucked under the first floor of the home. To reduce hardcover, we have sited the home tight to the front yard setback, thus minimizing the amount of driveway. With these efforts, you have before you a plan in which the ''.ardcover equals not 46% as would be possible with if Proposal U1 were pursued, nor is it the 42% hardcover that now exists as an average of the four lots, but rather we are proposing a hardcover reduction from the existing to 38%. In addition, if we follow the two home development scheme, we would be building two docks, but our proposal is only for one. We know that requesting to build two individual homes, with 46% hardcover each, similar to the variance recently granted our neighbors, as w’ell as building two docks, would ma.ximize our resale value and profit on our lots. However it would not meet our needs for a retirement home where our children and grandchildren can visit. Neither w ould it be as environmentally friendly as building a single home with significantly reduced hardcover on a single larger combined lot. Finally, we respectfully request the planning commission's thoughtful consideration of this variance request so that we might continue our long-standing residency in Orono in our proposed retirement home.* ‘-r? ^ ‘ I* "7* "•t' , A '-r* • • f • • y • *