07-10-2023 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 7381 3 The existing house and deck were not constructed by the current property owners. The applicant is requesting the average lakeshore setback variance to expand the existing deck for better use and fit for the current family’s needs; and c. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality.” There are existing retaining walls in the lake yard. The variance to permit the expanded retaining wall structure within the 75-foot lake setback will preserve the existing tree and character of the area. This criterion is met. 4. “Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties.” Economic considerations have not been a factor in the variance approval determination. 5. “Practical difficulties also include but are not limited to inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Variances shall be granted for earth-sheltered construction as defined in Minn. Stat. § 216C.06, subd. 2, when in harmony with Orono City Code Chapter 78.” This condition is not applicable. 6. “The board or the council may not permit as a variance any use that is not permitted under Orono City Code Chapter 78 for property in the zone where the affected person's land is located.” This condition is not applicable, as a residential use is a permitted use in the LR-1C District. 7. “The board or council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one-family dwelling as a two- family dwelling.” This condition is not applicable. 8. “The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property.” The slope of the property combined and condition of the existing improvements are unique conditions affecting the subject property. This criterion is met. 9. “The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which the land is located.” The failing timber wall configuration, and the existing tree create conditions which do not apply to all of the adjacent properties. This criterion is met. 10. “The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant.” Granting a setback variance to allow the retaining walls within the 75- foot lake setback to be reconstructed with an expanded footprint is reasonable, is a better solution long- term, and is necessary to preserve the rights of the owner and neighboring property. The variance is supported by practical difficulty. This criterion is met.