My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
11-15-2021 Planning Commission Packet
Orono
>
Agendas, Minutes & Packets
>
Planning Commission
>
Packets
>
2020-2029
>
2021
>
11-15-2021 Planning Commission Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
11/16/2021 8:51:50 AM
Creation date
11/16/2021 8:26:00 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
152
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
11/10/21,9:03 AM Permit Detail PC Exhibit B <br /> PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES DOCUMENTATION FORM <br /> LA21-000069 <br /> 1. The roe owner proposes to use the in a reasonable manner not permitted bythe <br /> property ttY p p property � <br /> Zoning Chapter. <br /> Response: This will still be a single family home. Biggest reason for this work is to attach the garage to the <br /> home and give more space to a growing family. With the house already in the front yard setback we feel this is <br /> the least impact on the rest of the yard to try and connect the house and garage. <br /> 2. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by the <br /> landowner. <br /> Response: Correct <br /> The home was built here long before the owners purchased the home. The home is in need of updates. The <br /> current 2nd level is poorly insulated and doesn't function well for today's family. When looking at the <br /> addition....no matter where we put the addition it would still be in the front yard setback due to the location of <br /> the home. <br /> 3. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. <br /> Response: true <br /> The design we are proposing meets all other city requirements and looks to add appeal to the home while staying <br /> with its original character. <br /> 4. Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties if reasonable use for the <br /> property exists under the terms of the Zoning Chapter. <br /> 1111 Response: These considerations have been made to keep as much of the existing character of the home while <br /> adding features to make a more comfortable home. The owner is not interested in doing a full demolition and <br /> starting over to move the entire structure to be outside the property setback requirements - that is something <br /> they can not economically afford. <br /> 5. Practical difficulties include, but are not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar <br /> energy systems. Variances shall be granted for earth-sheltered construction as defined in Minnesota <br /> Statutes, Section 116J.06, Subd. 2, when in harmony with this Chapter. <br /> Response: N/A <br /> 6. The Board of Appeals and Adjustments or the Council may not permit as a variance any use that <br /> is not allowed under this Chapter for property in the zone where the affected person's land is <br /> located. <br /> Response: To update the 2nd floor we would need to put a new roof on the section of home that sits outside <br /> the property <br /> 7. The Board or Council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one-family dwelling as a <br /> two-family dwelling. <br /> Response: N/A <br /> 8. The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such property <br /> or immediately adjoining property. <br /> Response: Yes this is the first time I have come across a home that isn't fully built on the owners property. We <br /> don't look to modify the main floor....but would like to expand the 2nd floor living. We have a design that keeps <br /> the 2nd floor on our property....even though the main floor is not. <br /> https://www2.citizenserve.com/Admin/PermitController 1/2 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.