Laserfiche WebLink
���p CITY OF ORONO <br /> RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL <br /> y� `� No. b 7 9 1 <br /> G <br /> t�xESHO�� <br /> objectives and preservation goals of the Comprehensive Plan. This criterion is not <br /> met. <br /> 4. "Variances may be granted when the applicant for the variance establishes that there <br /> are practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance. `Practical difficulties,' <br /> as used in connection with the granting of a variance, means that: <br /> a. The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not <br /> permitted by the official controls; <br /> The official controls require a minimum acreage and width for each newly <br /> created building lot. The Proposed Development does not meet the minimum <br /> standards for acreage. This criterion is not met. <br /> b. There are circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner; <br /> The size of the Property was not created by the /andowner however it is not <br /> unique. There are many properties which exceed the minimum acreage <br /> requirement, yet are not able to subdivide because they do not have twice the <br /> minimum lot size. The 1 acre lot size is a minimum standard and is not meant <br /> to guarantee a property owner that they will be allowed to subdivide their <br /> property simply because they have more than 1 acre in land. The purchase price <br /> of the Property was determined by landowner and is not unique. This criterion <br /> is not met; and <br /> c. The variance will not alter the essential character of the locality." <br /> The Proposed Deve/opment will be used as a residential lot. <br /> 5. "Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. Economic <br /> considerations have been identified as the most relevant factor in the variance <br /> request by the Applicant." In the Applicant's practical difficulties statement, they <br /> indicate that the Property was purchased "at a premium at public auction" and <br /> identified this as "a facto►" in their practical difficulty determination. The purchase <br /> price of the Property is not a valid practical difficulty. The Applicant has stated that <br /> the Proposed Development is more economically viable if he is allowed to build two <br /> homes valued at under$1,000,000 rather than a single home valued at more than <br /> $1,000,000. The purchase price of the Property and the marketability of the land is <br /> the primary reason for the variance request. This criterion is not met. <br /> 6. "Practical difficulties also include but are not limited to inadequate access to direct <br /> sunlight for solar energy systems. Variances shall be granted for earth-sheltered <br /> construction as defined in Minn. Stat. § 216C.06, subd. 2, when in harmony with <br /> Orono City Code Chapter 78." This condition is not applicable. <br /> 3 <br />