My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
06-14-1993 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
1993
>
06-14-1993 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/29/2023 2:36:46 PM
Creation date
12/29/2023 2:31:47 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.
/
445
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
M <br />fhonino <br />S TA T f OF <br />^DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES <br />~METRO WATERS - 1200 WARNER ROAD, ST. PAUE, MN <br />772-7010 <br />June 14, 1993 <br />Ms. Jeanne Mabusth <br />City of Orono <br />p.o. Box 66 <br />Crystal Bay, Minnesota 55323-0066 <br />RE: APPLICATION /1811, C. JACK REMEIN (3237 CASCO CIRCLE), LOT <br />WIDTH VARIANCE FOR LOT HELD IN COMMON OWNERSHIP, LAKE <br />MINNETONKA (27-133, #9), CITV OF ORONO, HENNEPIN COUNTY <br />Dear Ms. Mabusth: <br />The purpose of this letter is to clarify points discussed in my <br />correspondence of May 17, 1993. In that letter I noted that the <br />city's ordinance requires contiguous substandard lots to be <br />combined if they are under the same ownership. The lot in question <br />for variance application request #1811 has a substandard width and <br />is under the same ownership as the adjacent lot. Therefore, uhe <br />city's ordinance requires that the lots be combined. I also noted <br />that in order for the city to grant a variance that hardship must <br />be demonstrated. <br />QiH Clapp, of the Attorney General's Office, and I have had <br />follow-up discussions regarding this matter and felt further <br />clarification was required regarding hardship. Based on the <br />information we have reviewed for this case, hardship does not <br />appear to have been demonstrate-!. <br />Hardship must be demonstrated to justify approval of a variance <br />request. The approval of a variance due to hardship should be <br />based on the following prerequisites: <br />The proposed use is reasonable. <br />It would be unreasonable to require conformance with the <br />ordinance. Practical difficulties may arise due to <br />"functional and aesthetic concerns" and econoiais <br />considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulty. <br />The difficulty of conforming to the ordinance is due to <br />circumstances unique to the property, such as <br />topography. If the problem is common to a number of homes In <br />the area, it is not considered unique. <br />The problem must not be created by the landowner. <br />The variance, if granted, must not alter the essential <br />character of the locality. <br />A. <br />B. <br />C. <br />D. <br />E. <br />AN equal opportunity evPLOYgB
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.