06-09-2003 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

I* t ft ‘. rr-■> • • •/ ' t• ' • •* .k. ^••*N ''\k €. f *. Dr. Dennis and Diane Killian Variance Application 3/18/03 DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST We are a couple who are raising our niece in our home. We would like to build a lakeside home to live in which is sufficient size for us to comfortably raise our niece. Our request is that we can build such a house, on our double lot, as it is described in thb Variance application Additional Background Information: (This section was written with the Toths, our new neighbors, with whom we coordinated our home design. So, it is very similar to the description in their Variance application) We own 3 adjacent properties and are planning to build a home for ourselves at 1300 Spruce Place and sell 1280 and 1290 Spruce to the Toths, a very nice couple, for their retirement home. We are extremely sensitive to the delicate lakefront ecology and have woriced closely with the Killians and our designers to come up with a plan, which will significantly improve the beauty and lakefront environment of these adjacent parcels. In a nutshell, the net impact of our two proposals (Toths* and Killians*) is to remove about 3,000 square feet of hardcover from the 0’-75* lake front zone. 3,000 square feet is the equivalent of one good sized or two extremely modest homes. The only man made items left in that zone are essential existing retaining walls needed for erosion control, and existing stairs so that we can walk to the edge of the water. Additionally, the net effect of our two proposals will be to reduce the overall site hardcover fium 42% to 39% while removing a significant portion of hardcover which is presently in the 0*-75 zone and placing a reduced amount well within present day set backs. We have met several times with Orono planning officials and have continued to reduce the size of our proposed home until it has reached what we consider a functional minimum. HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNIJSIJAI. PROPERTY CONDITIONS As is the case with our future neighbors, the Toth’s, it is our understanding that these lots were subdivided at a time when the city ’s lot requirements were much smaller. Subsequently, tl^.e area has been re-zoned with much higher minimum lot size requirements. This re-zoning has created a hardship by making historically buildable lots unbuildable. We therefore request that the city grants us a variance regarding minimum lot size and maximum allowable hardcover for these lots. Additionally, this double lot, which we purchased, has a “fan” shape, in which the largest part of the lot is facing the lake. This is one of the things, which made this lot attractive to us. (See Sheet #2 of attached supporting documents.) Unfortunately, this fan shape creates a configuration hardship because the shape of ftte lot places a Ifrgh percentage of the lot area in the 0’-75* setback. At the same time the l»«a njftmik*.- ,'rniru^ml - 1l ■ A \ a i