My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
12-12-2016 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
2016
>
12-12-2016 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/29/2019 3:39:29 PM
Creation date
11/28/2017 3:58:07 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.
/
685
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
CITY OF ORONO <br />RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL <br />NO. <br />A4. The Property is located within Storm Water Overlay District Tier 3 which allows 35% <br />hardcover. The existing developed commercial grocery store has 2.04 acres of hardcover, <br />including the parking lot, drives, and commercial building, a ratio of 87%. <br />A5. In considering this application for variances, the Council has considered the advice and <br />recommendation of the Planning Commission and the effect of the proposed variances <br />upon the health, safety and welfare of the community, existing and anticipated traffic <br />conditions, light and air, danger of fire, risk to the public safety, and the effect on values <br />of property in the surrounding area. <br />VARIANCE ANALYSIS: <br />According to MN §462.537 Subd. 6(2) variances shall only be permitted when: <br />1. The variance is in harmony with the general intent and purpose of the Ordinance. The <br />applicable regulation provides for commercial signage in a manner that does not impact <br />the traveling public due to hindered visibility and visual clutter. Further, the ordinance <br />intends on improving the streetscape by requiring more stable, architecturally significant <br />monument signs in lieu of pylon signs. The variances, if granted, would protect visibility <br />while providing signage similar to monument signs. <br />2. The variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan. The Comprehensive Plan <br />identifies the subject parcel as commercial, the proposed signage supports and is <br />consistent with the intended use. <br />3. The applicant establishes that there are practical difficulties. <br />a. The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not <br />permitted by the official controls; the use of the property is the supermarket. <br />Freestanding signage is a normal and expected accessory structure in commercial <br />settings. The proposed signage, to be located in a conforming location, would <br />require the removal of several parking spaces, increasing hard cover, and <br />expanding the commercial area to the south, toward the residential neighborhood. <br />b. There are circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner; the <br />lot was developed in the 1970s, and has been a grocery store for many decades. <br />The siting of the building and the parking lot was established by previous <br />developers. Further, a portion of the county right of way juts into the property, to <br />facilitate traffic control mechanisms. This encroachment effectively takes parking <br />stalls away from the property owner, and eliminates normal locates for <br />freestanding signage; and <br />c. The variance will not alter the essential character of the locality. Recognizing that <br />signage is a normal improvement in a commercial setting, the proposed signage is <br />intended to compliment the improvements being made on the principal structure <br />while maintaining site visibility at the intersection. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.