Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />CITY OF ORONO <br />RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL <br /> <br />NO. 7289 <br /> <br /> <br />2 <br /> <br /> <br />4. Applicant has applied for the following variance: <br />a. A setback variance for a new monument sign <br /> <br />5. In considering this application for variance, the Council has considered the advice and <br />recommendation of the Planning Commission and the effect of the proposed variance <br />upon the health, safety and welfare of the community, existing and anticipated traffic <br />conditions, light and air, danger of fire, risk to the public safety, and the effect on values <br />of property in the surrounding area. <br /> <br />ANALYSIS: <br /> <br />1. “Variances shall only be permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes <br />and intent of the ordinance . . . .” A monument sign is an accessory structure and is in <br />harmony with the intent of the ordinance. The proposed location for the proposed sign with a <br />0 foot setback in not in harmony with the ordinance. <br /> <br />2. “Variances shall only be permitted . . . when the variances are consistent with the <br />comprehensive plan.” The proposed variance to facilitate placement of a monument sign on <br />the commercially zoned property is consistent with the comprehensive plan. <br /> <br />3. “Variances may be granted when the applicant for the variance establishes that there are <br />practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance. ‘Practical difficulties,’ as used in <br />connection with the granting of a variance, means that: <br />a. The property owner in question proposes to use the property in a reasonable <br />manner, however, the proposed use is not permitted by the official controls. <br />The request to permit construction of the monument sign for an existing business with <br />a nonconforming street yard appears to be reasonable as the property has a reduced <br />rear yard due to existing conditions and its orientation with respect to the lakeshore <br />creates difficulties. The requested 0 foot setback for a larger monument sign then <br />existing is unreasonable. <br /> <br />b. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not <br />created by the landowner. <br />The existing improvements on the lot with the current building and substandard street <br />yard is unique to the property and not created by the landowner; and <br /> <br />c. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality.” <br />