Resolution 6999 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

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