Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />CITY OF ORONO <br />RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL <br /> <br />NO. ________________________ <br /> <br /> <br />3 <br />c. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality.” <br />The changes to the existing lakeside deck are minimal, will be generally screened <br />from the neighboring homes, and will not adversely impact views of the lake from <br />the neighboring homes. This condition is met. <br />4. “Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties.” Economic <br />considerations 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, as residential decks are an allowed use in the <br />LR-1B District. <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 home and decks are existing and there are <br />mature property line trees and arborvitae which provide screening. The topography also <br />situates the Applicant’s home and decks out of direct view of the neighbors, the decks will <br />not adversely impact adjacent properties. This criterion is met. <br /> <br />9. “The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which the <br />land is located.” The Applicant’s proposal does not appear to be out of character with the <br />area. This criterion is met. <br />10. “The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a <br />substantial property right of the applicant.” The Applicant’s request to rebuild the existing <br />lakeside deck in a more functional footprint is reasonable and necessary. This statement <br />is true. <br />11. “The granting of the proposed variance will not in any way impair health, safety, comfort or <br />morals, or in any other respect be contrary to the intent of this chapter.” The proposed <br />changes to the existing deck will not impair the health, safety, comfort or morals of the <br />public. This criterion is met.