My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
09-22-2003 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
2003
>
09-22-2003 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/9/2023 8:45:01 AM
Creation date
2/8/2023 2:54:04 PM
Metadata
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
470
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
M03-2905 <br />June 13,2003 <br />Page 3 <br />Hardship Statement <br />Applicants have provided a brief hardship statement in Exhibit A, and should be asked for their <br />additional testimony regarding the application. <br />Hardship Analysis <br />In considering appllcallons for variance, the Planning Commission shall consider the effect of the proposed <br />variance upon the health, safety and welfare of the community, existing and anticipated traffic conditions, light <br />and air, danger of fire, risk to the public safety, and the fffect on values of property In the surrounding area. The <br />Planning Commission shall consider recommending approval for variances from the literal provisions of the <br />Zoning Code In instances where their strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because of circumstances <br />unique to the individual property under consideration, and shall recommend approval only when it is <br />demonstrated that such actions will be In keeping with the spirit and intent of die Orono Zoning Code. <br />Staff would make the following recommendations in regards to the criteria for "undue hardship" <br />pertinent to this application: <br />1.“The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed <br />by the official controls.’* <br />The property’ as it exists is being pul to a reasonable xse. <br />“The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by <br />the landowner.” <br />The plight of the landowner in regard to the average setback encroachments is a result of <br />the locations of adjoining homes, which applicant cannot control. <br />In regards to the lot coverage e.xcesses and setback for garage, these are a direct result of <br />owner's desire for more home and space. <br />3.“The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality.” <br />The garage addition extending forward ofthe home may be somewhat out ofcharacter with <br />the neughborhood: the deck and porch additions will not alter the characU < of the <br />neighborhood. <br />4.“Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use <br />the property exists under the terms of the Zoning Chapter.” <br />Economics ha\e not been discussed by applicant as a factor. <br />5.“Undue hardship also includes, but is not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight for <br />solar energy systems. Variances shall be granted for earth sheltered construction as defined <br />in Minnesota Statutes. Section 1 16J.06, Subd. 2, when in harmony with this Chapter.” <br />Sot applicable. <br />6.“The Board of Appeals and Adjustments or the Council may not permit as a variance ar^y use <br />that is not permitted under this Chapter for property in the zone where the affected person's <br />land is located.” <br />Sot applicable.
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.