Laserfiche WebLink
PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES DOCUMENTATION FORM <br />LA25-000036 <br />1. The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the Zoning <br />Chapter. <br />Response: n/a <br />2. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by the landowner. <br />Response: While the patio expansion is square with our house, our living area, both adjacent neighbors’ houses, and the <br />shoreline, the property boundary is not square. As displayed in the edited satellite image from the Hennepin County Property <br />website, while the houses at 1186 Wildhurst, 1200 Wildhurst, and 1214 Wildhurst are nearly square with each other, the <br />property boundary is diagonal between the houses. This was a surprise to property owners (of both 1200 Wildhurst and 1214 <br />Wildhurst) as both families have been maintaining and living as if the property line was parallel with the sides of our houses. <br />Until recently, there were no surveys of our properties / houses. And, the only site maps on file with Orono/Hennepin were 1) an <br />empty lot survey from 1964, and 2) an "as proposed" plan filed with the city in 1976 when our house was built. Both of these <br />documents are attached. <br />The approved construction site plan ("1976 Land Survey") proposed the house at 1200 Wildhurst Trail was to be built square to <br />the property boundary, instead of square to the adjacent houses and shoreline. Instead, the builder did not follow the plan <br />approved by City of Orono. The house was built square with the adjacent neighboring houses. The house was built within the <br />ten foot set-back and where the boundary converges on the typical living areas at 1200 Wildhurst Trail. <br />When we purchased the property in 2015, we did not know that our house, deck, and patio were already in violation of the side <br />set-back requirements. Nor did we know that expanding the patio would further converge with the property boundary, reducing <br />the property side set-back. <br />3. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. <br />Response: This does not alter the essential character of the locality as it is an expansion of an existing amentiy. <br />4. Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties if reasonable use for the property exists <br />under the terms of the Zoning Chapter. <br />Response: n/a <br />5. Practical difficulties include, but are not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy <br />systems. Variances shall be granted for earth-sheltered construction as defined in Minnesota Statutes, Section <br />116J.06, Subd. 2, when in harmony with this Chapter. <br />Response: n/a <br />6. The Board of Appeals and Adjustments or the Council may not permit as a variance any use that is not allowed <br />under this Chapter for property in the zone where the affected person's land is located. <br />Response: n/a <br />7. The Board or Council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one-family dwelling as a two-family <br />dwelling. <br />Response: n/a <br />8. The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such property or <br />immediately adjoining property. <br />Response: n/a <br />9. The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which said land is located. <br />Response: n/a <br />10. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property <br />127 <br />PC <br />Exhibit C