02-09-2004 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

FILE* 04.2967 January 6. 2004 Paga4o(5 Hardship Analysis In considering applications for variance, the Planning Commission shall consider the effect of the proposed variance upon the health, sttfety and welfare of the community, existing and anticipated traffic conditions, light and air, danger of fire, risk to the public safety, and the effect on values of property In the surrounding area. The Planning Commission shall consider recommending approval for variances from the literal provisions of the Zoning Code In Instances where their strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the Individual property under consideration, and shall recommend approval onfy when It Is demonstrated that such actions will be in keeping with the spirit and Intent of the Orono Zoning Code. Staff finds there is a hardship caused by the situation that resulted in the existing bam being destroyed. Staff wall support a variance to allow an oversized accessory structure exceeding the 1,200 s.f. by 300 s.f. to be constructed in the place of the old bam as the destmction of the bam was neither the applicant’s intent nor an act of God. Staff would make the following recommendations in regards to the criteria for “undue hardship” pertinent to this application: 1 . “The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls.” The property can be used, and an oversize structure can be constructed under the reasonable controls. In the opinion of staff this criterion is met. 2. “The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances imique to his property not created by the landowner.” The existing barn was destroyed by afire which was ruled an arson. The applicant did not cause the circumstances. In the opinion of staff this criterion is met. 3. “The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality'.” The barn which was destroyed was 2,616 s.f and existed for over IS years in the same location. Replacing the old larger barn with a new barn 1,116 s.f smaller will not alter the character of the locality. In the opinion of staff this criterion is met. 4. “Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the Zoning Chapter.” The applicant has not indicated economics in the application. In the opinion of staff this criterion is met. 5. “Undue hardship also includes, but is not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Variances shall be granted for earth sheltered construction as defined in Minnesota Statutes, Section 1 16J.06, Subd. 2, when in harmony with this Chapter.” N/A 6. The Board of Appeals and Adjustments or the Council may not permit as a variance any use that is not permitted under this Chapter for property in the zone where the affected person's land is located.” N/A