10-12-2020 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Additionally City Code 78-123 provides additional parameters within which a variance may be granted as follows: 4. Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. Economic considerations have not alone been a factor in the variance approval determination. Response: Economic factors apply, in that we can provide care for my Father in Law. 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. This condition is not applicable. Response: We own a Tesla and will be installing Tesla Solar on the porch roof which has the best sunlight rating on our property. We will be submitting a design for this separately. 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. This condition is not applicable, as a single family home is an allowed use in the LR-1C District. 7. The board or council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one-family dwelling as a two-family dwelling. 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 property is substandard in size and width and has lake frontage on either side. The immediate neighbors have similar challenges. The applicant was able to construct a home conforming to all setbacks in 2009. 9. The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which the land is located. There are other properties in the neighborhood with substandard size and width with double frontage to the lake, which are not unique conditions affecting only this property. The proposed addition would require street yard and average lakeshore setback variances which other neighboring properties have met. Response: Disagree with this as neighbor properties require similar variances. 10. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. The applicant states that their family has grown and need additional living space within the home. The property was built to meeting setback requirements, the property owner currently has use and enjoyment of the property currently. Response: The house does not meet our requirement to care for my disabled father in law. 11. The granting of the proposed variance will not in any way impair health, safety, comfort or morals, or in any other respect be contrary to the intent of this chapter. The applicant