Project Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Planning Commission March 16, 1998 Page 3 The total hardcover allowed without a variance for the entire lot would be 11,245, or 20 percent of the entire lot in this situation. My client proposes a total hardcover on the lot of 11,963 square feet. 11,963 square feet..,.. 57,063 square foot lot= 20.9 percent. That hardcover of 20.9 percent for the entire lot is in conformance with Minnesota Rules Section 6120.3300, subpart 11, which states in relevant part the following specific standards: "1. Impervious surface coverage of lots must not exceed 25 percent of the lot area." In fact, under State law, my client could have 14,266 square feet of hardcover (57,063 square feet x 25 percent= 14,266 square feet). It is clear from a review of the Minnesota Rules that the Department of Natural Resources, the MPCA and others that were involved in the development of them did not believe it was necessary to restrict hardcover less than 25 percent for the entire lot. I realize that is not necessarily controlling on the decision-making of the City of Orono, but it does indicate that there is nothing wrong from the State's perspective of allowing variances to your standards in such a way that do not exceed overall 25 percent impervious surface for the entire lot. The Application of the Undue Hardship Standard in the Variance Standard Sometimes people feel that the variance standard is such that it should be strictly applied in all situations. Even if one were to apply that feeling here, I believe that this variance request is justified under the variance standard for the following reasons: 1. The hardcover that my clients are proposing is not excessive, given the location of the home and the neighborhood. 2. Part of the reason why the general standard is exceeded is because of the configuration of the lot and the need for a more lengthy driveway to reach the home site. 3. To move the home site back to the road does not make sense, because then the view to the lake would be adversely affected by the adjacent homes, and the house would look out of place both from the lake and from the roadside. 4. My clients, by adding some holding ponds to their property, are making sure that the surface water runoff in any event is treated better than it would be with the normal development of the home, which would not provide for holding ponds on the site. 5. Much of the surface water runoff on this property now and in the future is from the public road, which water is passing through the property, untreated presently, and that water and the lake would be benefitted from my clients' proposed treatment ponds that otherwise would not be built, unless the City wished to acquire an easement over the property and build those ponds. 15264BDM