06-23-2003 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MONDAY, JUNE 9,2003 6. M>3*2885 Gerda and Ed Toth, 1280/1290 Spruce Place—Variances—Resolution No. 4991 Gaflron stated that the applicant requested the following variances to pennit construction of a new residence on a combined lot property: 1. lot area of 18,553 s.f. (0.43 acres) where 43,560 s.f. (1 acre) is required; 2. a lot width of 99’ at the OHWL and the 75’ setback from the OHWL where 140’ is required; 3. 111 s.f. (1.47%) hardcover within the 0-75’ lakeshore setback zone where none is permitted; 4. 3,303 s.f. (30%) hardcover within the 75-250’ lakeshore setback zone where 2,753 s.f. (25%) is permitted; 5. grading and filling within 75’ of the OHWL of Lake Minnetonka where no grading nor filling is permitted. The iqiplication was tabled at the April 21,2003 Planning Commission meeting to allow the applicants to reduce hardcover in the 75-250’ setback zone and structural coverage on the lot. At the May 19,2003 meeting, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the variances for lot area, lot width, hardcover only in the 0-75’ setback zone, and grading and filling within 75’ of the OHWL of Lake Minnetonka, and denial of the variance for hardcover in the 75-250 setback zone. The Planning Commission agreed that no suitable hardship could be identified to support a variance for excessive hardcover in the 75-250’ setback zone for new construction. Sansevere stated that he agreed with the Plmning Commission recommendation and was only concerned with the request for a hardcover variance in the 75-250' setback zone. Peter MacDonald, the Toth ’s builder, gave a presentation. He stated that the lot adjacent to the Toth ’s two combined lots was given a variance in 2000 allowing 46% hardcover, and asked why that was. Gaffron stated that he did not participate in that application, but that the lot was 50’ wide, so it was impossible to build a house within the requirements. MacDonald asked if the 50’ width of the lot created the hardship. Gaffron stated that it did in that instance, but that there is an undefined cut off point at which lot width no longer justifies a hardship. MacDonald stated the Toth ’s were combining two 50’ wide lots in a 1 acre zone. He stated that the zone was created with a I acre ideal size lot in mind, and as the lot size moves away from 1 acre, the hardship increases. He stated that the Planning Commission and Council ’s discretion had been overwhelmed by the rule of 25% hardcover. He stated that 50’ wide parcels are not adequate for water percolation. MacDonald stated that most of the house the Toth ’s were removing was in the 0-75’ setback zone and the overall hardcover was near 45%. Even with the purchase of the i