09-22-2003 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

FILE# 03-2938 September 10,2003 Page 2 of 5 00 Orono Orchard Road Ion at the SOO address :s 540 Orono Orchard FILE# 03-2938 Septembtr 10.2003 Page 3 of 5 Applicant has provided a hardship statement in Exhibit B, and should be asked for additional testimony regarding the application. Width Proposed 76.5 ’ No Change 16.5 ’ No Change 21.5 ’ 30.3 ’ No Change .overage f. (15%) ■f. (8.5%) i side yard setback, red. The existing home letback resulting in a /« considering appiicationsfor variance, Ike Pianning Conanission shaii consider the effect of the proposed variance upon the heaith, safety and welfare of the conununliy, existing and anticipated traffic conditions, light and air, danger of fire, risk to the public safety, and the effect on vaiues of property In the surrounding area. The Planning Commission shall consider recommending approvai for variances from the literal provisions of the Zoning Code In Instances where their strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unigue 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 finds that a hardship exists to allow an encroachment into the rear yard setback due to the location of the existing residence and the alley which splits the property in 2 parts thus making the current rear yard setback for the home non-conforming. However, staff does not find that any hardship exists to allow the 9.5 ’ encroachment into the side yard setback. The house is currently at 31 .4 ’ meeting the 30 ’ setback. The proposed addition would encroach 10 ’ into the currently conforming side yard setback. There is ample area on the west side of the home to add 282 s.f of additional liv ing space. 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.” In the opinion of staff this criterion is not met. 2. “The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by the landowner." In the opinion of staff this criterion is met. 3. "The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality." The neighborhood consists of lots 1-acre or less yet is located in a 2-acre district. 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." Not applicable. 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." Not applicable. 6. “The Board of Appeals and Adjustments or the Council may not permit as a