07-14-2003 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

#03-2909 June 12,2003 Pag*’ Code Interpretation Applicants’ attorney in Exhibit B suggests that the reduction in flood damage potential by raising the structure to meet the 932.5* lowest-floor elevation, should technically allow this structure to remain in place as an exception to the 50% rule of 10.55 Subd. 26(B). If the provisions of 26(E) are considered, it may be argued that the act of temporarily removing the structure from its fonner location constitutes that it has been ‘destroyed by any means’; in that case the City could choose to issue or not issue a CUP for its reconstruction in a manner that addresses the floodplain issues... Hardship Statement Applicant has provided a letter of request explaining the situation (Exhibit B) as well as a brief hardship statement in Exhibit A, and should be asked for his additional testimony regarding the application. Hardship Analysis /« coHslierittg applications far variance, the Planning Commission shall consider the effect of the proposed variance upon the health, safety and welfare of the community, exiuing and anticipated traffic conditions, light and air, danger of fire, risk to the puNic safely, 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 only when It is demonstrated that such actions will be In keeping with the spirit and intent of the Orono Zoning Code._____ 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 properly can be put to reasonable use absent the variance. 2.“The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by the landowner.” The boathouse is perhaps a unique structure although probably not historically significant. The plight is that the boathouse was moved absent prior approval for same, which is a situation created by the landowner. 3.“The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality.” The boathouse has been in placefor many} ears at this location. It has been painted in dark tones during at least the past 25 years which limits its visibility. Replacing it and similarly darkly coloring its exterior would result in little impact on the essential character of the neighborhood. 4.“Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the Zoning Chapter.” Economics have not been cited by applicants as a hardship. I I J