Laserfiche WebLink
CITY OF ORONO <br />RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL <br />NO. 7 1 0 8 <br />noncondorming location. The applicant can replace the building "in kind" in the <br />current location and it would not be in harmony with the City Code to allow the <br />nonconforming building to be located to a more visible portion of the property. <br />2. The variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan. The proposed retaining walls <br />are recessed into the earth to limit their visual impacts and support the stairs and <br />slope on the property, maintaining the rural character of the lake. An accessory <br />building within the lakeyard, average lakeshore setback and creating new building <br />hardcover is not consistent with the comprehensive plan to preserve the shoreline <br />of Lake Minnetonka. <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 owner proposes to install retaining wall <br />improvements which are residential in nature and reasonable from a <br />residential scope. The proposed accessory building is not proposed in a <br />reasonable location. The property owner has not demonstrated that the <br />proposed building can't be located in a conforming location. <br />b. There are circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner; The <br />owner has proposed retaining walls as a solution which will protect against <br />failure of the slope. The existing slope of the lake yard was not a result of <br />actions by the owner. The circumstances for the accessory building are not <br />unique and property has chosen the proposed building location within the <br />protected lakeyard, average lakeshore setback and new hardcover within the <br />lakeyard. The building location is driven by convenience instead of <br />compliance with the Code; and <br />c. The variance will not alter the essential character of the locality. The variance to <br />permit retaining wall structures within the 75 -foot setback will help to <br />maintain the existing slope and character of the area. Allowing a new shed <br />to be located in the lake and side required yards does not match the natural <br />character for the shoreline of Lake Minnetonka. <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 the use for a single family home with <br />