05-13-2019 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. ________________________ 4 4. “Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties.” Economic considerations have not been a factor in the variance approval determination. 5. “Practical difficulties also include but are not limited to inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Variances shall be granted for earth-sheltered construction as defined in Minn. Stat. § 216C.06, subd. 2, when in harmony with Orono City Code Chapter 78.” This condition is not applicable. 6. “The board or the council may not permit as a variance any use that is not permitted under Orono City Code Chapter 78 for property in the zone where the affected person's land is located.” This condition is not applicable, as a lakeshore patio is an allowed accessory use in the LR-1A District. 7. “The board or council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one-family dwelling as a two-family dwelling.” This condition is not applicable. 8. “The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property.” The Property is an existing lot of record, the home has existed for nearly 100 years, and the Property contains a large number of mature trees for screening. The topography of the Property increases as it moves away from the lake and the owner feels the proposed improvements are necessary for access and are logical and will not adversely impact adjacent properties. This criterion is met. 9. “The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which the land is located.” The Applicants’ proposal does not appear to be out of character with the area. The elevation of the patio area and the existing vegetation screen the improvements from the lake, the proposal does not involve an expansion of the nonconformities, only a reorientation, and will not encroach nearer to the lake than the existing. This criterion is met. 10. “The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant.” Granting a lake setback variance and hardcover variance to allow the reconstruction and reorientation of the patio within the 75-foot lake setback is reasonable and necessary to preserve the property rights of the owners. 11. “The granting of the proposed variance will not in any way impair health, safety, comfort or morals, or in any other respect be contrary to the intent of this chapter.” Granting the lake setback variance and hardcover variance to allowing the existing patio to be reconstructed and reconfigured as proposed will not adversely impact health, safety, comfort or morals, or in any way be contrary to the ordinances.