Laserfiche WebLink
CITY OF ORONO <br /> RESOLUTION OF THE UTYCOUNCIL <br /> y� �� NO. 6 (� yy <br /> G <br /> H 0 0 <br /> 3. The Property contains 0.6 acres in area and has a defined lot width of 180 feet. <br /> 4. The Property is within Tier 1 and hardcover is limited to 25 % according to the Stormwater <br /> Quality Overlay District. <br /> 5. Applicant has applied for the following variance: <br /> a. Front Yard Setback <br /> 6. In considering this application for variance, the Council has considered the advice and <br /> recommendation of the Planning Commission and the effect of the proposed variance <br /> upon the health, safety and welfare of the community, existing and anticipated traffic <br /> conditions, light and air, danger of fire, risk to the public safety, and the effect on values <br /> of property in the surrounding area. <br /> ANALYSIS: <br /> 1. The variance is in harmony with the general intent and purpose of the Ordinance. The <br /> proposed front yard variance is in harmony with the purpose of the Ordinance. The <br /> small lot includes difficulties in its area and depth. <br /> 2. The variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan. The proposed variance to <br /> expand the home on a nonconforming lot of record is consistent with the <br /> comprehensive plan. <br /> 3. The applicant establishes that there are practical difficulties. <br /> a. The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not <br /> permitted by the official controls; the request to permit construction of the <br /> additions to the home on the substandard lot, in the proposed location within <br /> the front setback, appears to be somewhat reasonable as the property's <br /> reduced size and depth and 75' creek setback create difficulties. <br /> b. There are circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner; the <br /> uniquely small size and depth, and the location of the protected tributaryand <br /> required setbacks prevent a reasonable residential footprint. and <br /> c. The variance will not alter the essential character of the locality. Other properties <br /> in the neighborhood have similar setback challenges, the subject property <br /> will not be out of character with the neighborhood. <br /> 4. Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. Economic <br /> considerations have not been a factor in the variance approval determination. <br /> 5. 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 /> 2 <br />