My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
11-24-2003 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
2003
>
11-24-2003 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/9/2023 8:45:54 AM
Creation date
2/8/2023 3:12:40 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.
/
458
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
noymi <br />August 19,2003 <br />Page5of7 <br />or a 0-75’ zone hardcover variance. The applicant has submitted plans that show a <br />rebuild and consistently staff and Planning Commission have required full removals in <br />the 0-75’ zone. The area of structure in the 0-75’ zone amounts to 325 s.f. in relation to <br />the 2,734.425 s.f. house that is being proposed. Removal of structure in the 0-75’ zone <br />would only amount to 11.8% of the entire proposed home. The applicant has additional <br />area outside the 75’ setback zone to compensate for this lost structure. Therefore, staff <br />doesn’t find any hardships which would constitute approval of the creek setback or <br />hardcover variance in the C-75’ zone. <br />Staff finds that due to the limited buildable area outside the 75’ creek setback, a hardship <br />e.xists which is inherent to the property. The property consists of 12,000 s.f. in the 0-75’ <br />zone an j only 6,580 s.f. in the 75-250’ zone (refer to Exhibits G and H). <br />Staff would make the following recommendations in regards to the criteria for “undue <br />hardship” pertinent to this application: <br />1."The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under <br />conditions allowed by the official controls.” <br />If the property owner wanted to rebuild, any reasonable sized home would <br />require several variance approvals due to the limited buildable area. <br />2.“The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not <br />created by the landowner.” <br />The creek adjacent to the applicant's property is a circumstance that is unique to <br />the property and not a condition created by the landowner. <br />3. “The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality.” <br />Many of the homes on Crestview Avenue are smaller homes on smaller lots. <br />Variances allowing less restrictive setbacks will not alter the character of the <br />locality. <br />4.“Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if <br />reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the Zoning Chapter.' <br />Not applicable <br />5.“Undue hardship also includes, but is not limited to, inadequate access to direct <br />sunlight for solar energy systems. Variances shall be granted for earth sheltered <br />construction as defined in Minnesota Statutes, Section 1 16J.06, Subd. 2, when in <br />harmony with this Chapter." <br />Not applicable
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.