Resolution 6993 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

BOAT CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL <?‘? NO. 6993 4kEsxo. 4. Applicant has applied for the following variance[s]: a. Exceed the maximum size for an oversized accessory structure. 5. In considering this application for variance, the Council has considered the advice and recommendation of the Planning Commission and the effect of the proposed variance upon the health, safety and welfare of the community, existing and anticipated traffic conditions, light and air, danger of fire, risk to the public safety, and the effect on values of property in the surrounding area. ANALYSIS: 1. The variance is in harmony with the general intent and purpose of the Ordinance. The applicant has stated their intent is to add to an already existing oversized accessory building (OAB) instead of building a new separate building. The request does not meet the intent of the ordinance to limit the sizing of OAB based on lot size, creating too much mass in a single residential structure. 2. The variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan. Oversize Accessory buildings are permitted and are consistent with the comprehensive plan. 3. The applicant establishes that there are practical difficulties. a. The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the official controls; The request to permit construction of the larger than permitted OAB does not appear to be reasonable as there is adequate space within the property to construct additional accessory buildings. b. There are circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner; While there is some topography to the lot, these does not create circumstances sufficient to support uniqueness and practical difficulty. The desire to build an addition versus a second accessory building is a condition established by the applicant. and c. The variance will not alter the essential character of the locality. The variance would allow a larger accessory building, which can have the effect of additional massing in the residential area. Additionally City Code 78-123 provides additional parameters within which a variance may be granted as follows: 4. Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. The applicant has stated that economic considerations have been a factor as well as environmental and neighborly goals. 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. 2