Laserfiche WebLink
FILE*19-28 <br /> May 20,2019 <br /> Page 3 of 5 <br /> while not introducing additional density. The access can be provided via an easement, <br /> and the nature of these lots do not lend themselves to further subdivision, i.e. density. <br /> 2. The variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan.The use of the property remains <br /> residential,consistent with the comprehensive plan. <br /> 3. The applicant establishes that there are practical difficulties. <br /> a. The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not <br /> permitted by the official controls; The use of the property remains the same. <br /> b. There are circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner; <br /> The condition of the property prior to development, configured as three <br /> separate lots,was not created by the developer. Peninsula and dead end <br /> and <br /> c. The variance will not alter the essential character of the locality. The variance, <br /> allowing access to the back lot via an easement versus an outlot will not be <br /> discernable to the character of the locality. <br /> Additionally City Code 78-123 provides additional parameters within which a variance may be <br /> granted as follows: <br /> 4. Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. Economic <br /> considerations alone have not been a factor in the variance approval determination. <br /> 5. Practical difficulties also include but are not limited to inadequate access to direct sunlight <br /> for solar energy systems. Variances shall be granted for earth-sheltered construction as <br /> defined in Minn.Stat. §216C.06,subd. 2,when in harmony with Orono City Code Chapter <br /> 78.This condition is not applicable. <br /> 6. The board or the council may not permit as a variance any use that is not permitted under <br /> Orono City Code Chapter 78 for property in the zone where the affected person's land is <br /> located.This condition is not applicable. <br /> 7. The board or council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one-family dwelling <br /> as a two-family dwelling.This condition is not applicable. <br /> 8. The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such <br /> property or immediately adjoining property. The applicant does not demonstrate any <br /> special conditions. <br /> 9. The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which <br /> the land is located.The applicant does not demonstrate any special conditions. The lot <br /> is within a peninsula, and the potential to extend the drive beyond the subdivision is <br /> not likely. <br /> 10. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a <br /> substantial property right of the applicant.This is not the case here. The right of a dock <br /> within a lagoon or cove is not a protected right. The adjacent property has lake frontage <br /> on the bay side, allowing a dock for this lake property. <br /> 11. The granting of the proposed variance will not in any way impair health, safety, comfort <br /> or morals, or in any other respect be contrary to the intent of this chapter. The variance <br /> would allow the replatting of the lots without the provision of an outlot. The applicant <br /> states that this will not impact the health,welfare etc. not requiring the outlot in front <br /> lot/back lot could have far reaching consequences related to lake densities and access <br /> questions in the future. <br /> 12. The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but <br /> is necessary to alleviate demonstrable difficulty. The variance does seem to be a <br /> convenience. The applicant's argument that the dock was "approved in the original <br />