Laserfiche WebLink
CITY OF ORONO <br />RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL <br />NO. 7387 <br />4 <br />wall, deck, and shed structures within the bluff and 75-foot lake setback <br />will help to maintain the existing slope and character of the area. <br />B4. “Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties.” Economic <br />considerations have not been a factor in the variance approval determination. <br />B5. “Practical difficulties also include but are not limited to inadequate access to direct sunlight <br />for solar energy systems. Variances shall be granted for earth-sheltered construction as <br />defined in Minn. Stat. § 216C.06, subd. 2, when in harmony with Orono City Code Chapter <br />78.” This condition is not applicable. <br />B6. “The board or the council may not permit as a variance any use that is not permitted under <br />Orono City Code Chapter 78 for property in the zone where the affected person's land is <br />located.” This condition is not applicable as residential improvements are permitted <br />within the residential district. <br />B7. “The board or council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one-family dwelling <br />as a two-family dwelling.” This condition is not applicable. <br />B8. “The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such <br />property or immediately adjoining property.” The slope of the Property and lakeshore <br />improvements destroyed by fire are unique conditions affecting the subject <br />Property. <br />B9. “The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which the <br />land is located.” The steep slope, existing timber wall configuration, and the existing <br />improvements create conditions which do not apply to all of the adjacent <br />properties. <br />B10. “The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a <br />substantial property right of the applicant.” Granting bluff, average lakeshore, 75-foot <br />lake setback variances to allow the replacement retaining walls within the 75-foot <br />lake setback to remain as constructed with an expanded footprint is reasonable, is <br />a better solution long-term, and is necessary to preserve the rights of the owner. <br />The condition also applies to the reconstruction of the lakeside deck and shed. The <br />need for variances is supported by the vulnerable slope on the Property. <br />B11. “The granting of the proposed variance will not in any way impair health, safety, <br />comfort or morals, or in any other respect be contrary to the intent of this chapter.” Granting <br />the lake yard setback variance allowing the retaining walls, deck and shed within <br />the average lakeshore, setback, bluff and 75-foot lake setback will not adversely