Laserfiche WebLink
CITY OF ORONO <br /> RESOLUTION OF TO CITY COUNCIL <br /> NO. 7 L <br /> G <br /> t�XESHo�� <br /> 4. Applicant has applied for the following variance: <br /> a. Front yard setback <br /> 5. In considering this application for variance, the Council has considered the advice and <br /> recommendation of the Planning Commission and the effect of the proposed variance <br /> upon the health, safety and welfare of the community, existing and anticipated traffic <br /> conditions, light and air, danger of fire, risk to the public safety, and the effect on values <br /> of property in the surrounding area. <br /> ANALYSIS: <br /> 1. The variance is in harmony with the general intent and purpose of the Ordinance. The <br /> proposed variance is in harmony with the purpose of the Ordinance. The existing <br /> conditions of the structure creates difficulties for conforming improvements to the <br /> home. <br /> 2. The variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan. The proposed variance to <br /> expand the structure on a nonconforming lot of record is consistent with the <br /> 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 request to permit construction of the <br /> additions to the home on the substandard lot, in the proposed location within <br /> the front yard setback, appears to be reasonable as the project will not <br /> change the current setbacks. The property's existing conditions due to the <br /> placement of the home creates difficulties. <br /> b. There are circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner; the <br /> existing conditions due to the location of the home is unique and <br /> c. The variance will not alter the essential character of the locality. Few of other <br /> properties in the neighborhood have similar setback challenges,the subject <br /> property will not be out of character with the neighborhood. <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 /> 2 <br />