04-24-1989 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

A) "Hardship. The necessity for a side yard setback variance is attributable to a misunderstanding between applicants and their neighbor as >o the location of the existing property line. The setback from the shoreline is necessitated by the unusual configuration of applicants* lot and the placement thereon of applicants' home which makes all portions of their rear yard area within the 75’ shoreline setback area. Dredging of a portion of their property years ago has resulted in the shoreline of Lake Minnetonka having been artificially modified to create an inletr the result of which is to deprive a^ licants of the ability to maintain any structure whatsoever in .heir rear yard area. This situation also results in the need for a variance from the applicable hardcover requirement in as much as no hardcover whatsoever would otherwise be permitted in applicants* rear yard area." B) "Description of unusual property conditions. Applicants* lot is small and the house constructed thereon has been placed so as to render the entire rear yard area within the 0 hardcover area and the 75* "no structure" setback area. Applicants* rear yard area is a bluff dropping down a relatively sheer-face at the rear to the shores of an inlet dredged out to Lake Minnetonka. The surface of applicants* rear yard is not visible from Lake Minnetonka. The existence of a pool, or proposed decking surrounding a pool cannot be seen from Lake Minnetonka." 7. Application #1353 was reviewed by the Orono Planning Commission at a public hearing held during the regular Planning Commission meeting of November 21, 1988. The Planning Commission, after hearing comments by the applicants, their attorney, landscape architect, and engineer, voted 6-0 to recommend denial of the proposed after-the-fact Vw-riances, finding that no suitable hardship or reasonable justification was presented for granting the variances after-the-fact. 8. At their regular meeting of January 23, 1989, the Orono City Council reviewed the application for after-the-fact variances and the Planning Commission recommendation. Additionally, the City Council accepted comments from the applicants and their attorney as stated in the minutes of that meeting. The Council indicated that approval of the after-the-fact variances would be inconsistent with the City s past practices, and that they could not accept the presented hardships as valid. The Council tabled the application on a vote of 4-0 to allow applicants time to work with City staff regarding removal of the pod and spa. Page 3 of 8