Laserfiche WebLink
Metadata
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015 Laserfiche. All rights reserved.
-WATp CITY OF ORONO <br /> RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL <br /> �� NO. 1059 <br /> ,n L <br /> `�QSHO <br /> 3. The Property contains 0.14 acres in area and has a defined lot width of 50 feet. <br /> 4. The Property is within Tier 3 and hardcover is limited to 35 % according to the Stormwater <br /> Quality Overlay District. <br /> 5. Applicant has applied for the following variances: <br /> a. Rear yard setback <br /> 6. 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 /> applicant is proposing to deck stairs which is consistent with the intent of the <br /> ordinance. The variances for a rear yard setback request is reasonable considering <br /> buildable area of the property. <br /> 2. The variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan. The variances resulting in a <br /> permit for a deck stairs in a residential zone are consistent with the Comprehensive <br /> 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 applicant is proposing use of the property <br /> in a reasonable manner. The deck, already approved by variance, <br /> encroaches into the setback. Any stairs would require a variance. Stairs are <br /> a reasonable improvement for an elevated deck. There is limited space to <br /> construct a conforming structure on the site. <br /> b. There are circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner; The <br /> plight of the property owner is due to the existing substandard lot size and <br /> c. The variance will not alter the essential character of the locality. The character of <br /> the neighborhood is not likely to be significantly altered from replacement <br /> of the residence <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 /> 2 <br />