07-08-2024 CC Agenda Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 7491 3 reasonable shaped deck. The proposal preserves the intent of the ordinance by not disrupting any neighboring lake views. This criterion is met. b. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by the landowner. The location of the neighboring homes is out of the control of the homeowner. The applicant is requesting the average lakeshore setback variance to construct an expanded deck to a more reasonable size and shape; and c. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality.” The proposed variance resulting in an expanded lakeside deck will not alter the character of the locality. The project will meet the 75-foot lake setback, meet hardcover requirements and limit impact to the neighbors. 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 home is a permitted use in the LR -1B 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 existing position of the property in relation to the neighboring homes is unique. The neighboring properties will not have th eir lake view impacted by the proposed deck expansion. 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 request is specific to this property as it relates to an existing deck. 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.” The proposed deck expansion allows the property owner to fully enjoy 39