06-27-2011 Council Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, June 27, 2011 7:00 o'clock p.m. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS — LINDA FEUSS, REPRESENTATIVE Feuss stated she had nothing to report but would be available for questions. PUBLIC COMMENTS None PLANNING DEPARTMENT REPORT 5. #10 -3481 NICK AND JODEE KOZLAK,1635 BOHNS POINT ROAD — REVISIT VARIANCE APPROVAL Franchot moved, Rahn seconded, to remove Application No. #10 -3481 Nick and Jodee Kozlak,1635 Bohns Point Road, from the agenda at the request of the applicants. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. *6. #11 -3509 TOM AND MARGARET RADKE, 3424 EAST LAKE STREET — VARIANCE — RESOLUTION NO. 6055 Franchot moved, Rahn seconded, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 6055, a Resolution Granting a • Variance to Municipal Zoning Code Section 78 -305, for the property located at 3424 East Lake Street. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. 7. #11 -3512 CITY OF ORONO — ZONING CODE TEXT AMENDMENTS TO SECTIONS 78 -100; 78 -121 THROUGH 78 -123; 78 -1111, AND 78 -1134 REGARDING VARIANCES — ORDINANCE NO. 88, THIRD SERIES Curtis stated as a result of the Krummenacher ruling, the state statutory language was recently revised to reflect the requirement for demonstration of a practical difficulty when cities grant a zoning code variance. The revision of the statute results in inconsistencies between Orono's Zoning Code and the language in MN State Statute Chapter 462. Currently, Orono City Code is written to require demonstration of a particular hardship or undue hardship when granting a variance from City zoning code requirements. There are six references to particular hardship or undue hardship in the City's current language. The City Attorney has made the appropriate changes to reflect the new statutory language. On June 20, 2011, the Planning Commission voted 6 -0 to recommend approval of the text amendments. McMillan asked what impact this amendment will have on Orono. Curtis stated her experience with the new, language is that the residents appear to understand the language better rather than the term hardship that was used in the old statute. Mattick stated the term practical difficulties allow the. landowner to explain what the problem is and why the code does not fit their circumstances: It also allows them to explain how the changes will still be in keeping with the character of the neighborhood. From a legal standpoint, there is some good guidance on • how cities can determine practical difficulties and that he is satisfied and comfortable with the change. Page 2 of 5