Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />CITY OF ORONO <br />RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL <br /> <br />NO. ________________________ <br /> <br /> <br />2 <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />4. Applicant has applied for the following variance: <br />a. Front yard setback <br /> <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 /> <br />ANALYSIS: <br /> <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