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