Resolution 7111 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL ' 1 NO. 7111 c, t�'cEsHO The applicant states that "there will be no noticeable difference from the street, lake, or air." While the relocation of the property line will not be noticed visually, allowing structures to be 2 feet from the property line,whereas the rest of the neighborhood is required to be 10 feet from the property line, does alter the essential character of the neighborhood. This criteria is not met. 4. "Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties." The applicant responds "N/A". There is no evidence to suggest that economic considerations were the only justification for the variance. This criteria is met. 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."The applicant responds "N/A".This condition is not applicable. 6. "The board or the council may not permit as a variance any use that is not permitted under Orono City Code Chapter 78 for property in the zone where the affected person's land is located." The applicant notes that the use of either property is not changing. Single family residential uses are a permitted use in the LR-1B zoning district. This criteria is met. 7. "The board or council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one-family dwelling as a two-family dwelling."The applicant responds"N/A".This condition is not applicable. 8. "The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property."The applicant responds"yes",though no evidence has been provided to support that claim. Often,characteristics of a lot are the clearest support for a variance. Staff has analyzed the survey provided by the applicant. There are a number of contours identified near the boat house*, where the existing and proposed lot lines diverge at the greatest distance. For this exercise,staff noted the location of the 938 and the 930 contour, as both contours can be observed crossing the existing and proposed property line. The OHWL was not chosen because of some ambiguity for its location as shown on the survey. The survey provided by the applicant suggests that the slope at the property line(6'/30.19'=19.8%)would actually get steeper(6/27.17'=22%) if the boundary line shifts to the east. Finally, shifting the property line reduces the area for the owner of 1380 to maintain their property, including the boathouse,a concern of the applicant previously. This criteria is not met. *The applicant states in his Practical Difficulties response that the contours of the land make it extremely difficult for owners of 1380 Rest Point Road to maintain the property. It is not stated where the slope is too steep to maintain, it is assumed to be near the boat house. Further, 4