HomeMy WebLinkAboutExhibit C - NarrativeFebruary 20, 2024
Robert Breon and Julie Brandsma - Wayzata, MN 55321
City of Orono - City Planner
and City Review Board
2750 Kelley Parkway Orono, MN 55356
To Whom It May Concern and Review Board Committee:
This letters intent is to support a request for a variance on the setback requirements for our property at 2700
Casco Point Road. The site is currently a non-conforming lot due to the existing location of the structures. The
detached garage sits outside the setbacks, and the house sits slightly outside the south setback. We intended
to remodel the current home and garage.
After trying to work with the plans to renovate the original house structure, which was already showing signs of
foundation failure, we decided to bring in more experts. We were advised that the existing house structure
should not be remodeled and could be unsafe in the future. The current house will be torn down, and a new
structure will be built in its place. The detached garage will remain, as this structure is in excellent structural
condition. The roof from the existing detached garage will be raised to accommodate the attachment of the
new house structure.
Here lies our dilemma: We felt that the existing garage, which is a solid sound structure, would not make sense
to destroy a perfectly built building, even though the current location of the structure is currently sitting outside
the setbacks. We also needed a way to get from the garage to the house while avoiding inclement weather.
So, we would need to attach them.
There are two variance requests for both setback requirements - The northside and front setbacks.
1) Is for a front setback variance to raise the existing roof, so it can now be an attached garage.
2) The other variance request is for the northside setback, and the existing detached garage is outside this
setback now. With the new design, the garage will be directly attached.
The new redesigned plans were chosen with the care and conscientiousness of our neighbors. The plans will
improve the property’s aesthetics without intruding on its surroundings.
Thank you all for your time and consideration in reviewing our request.
Regards,
Robert Breon and Julie Brandsma
This is your opportunity to prove that the variance is justified. The City will use the following information to determine a
denial or approval recommendation.
Please address each statement as completely as possible. For statements that do not apply to your situation, please
state: N/A.
1. The variance is in harmony with the general intent and purpose of the Ordinance.: Yes
2. The variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan. Yes
3a. The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the Zoning Chapter
Anticipated use as a single residence is permitted.
3b. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by the landowner.:
Non-conforming lot with garage structure which is existing.
3c. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality.: we will not correct.
|4. Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties if reasonable use for the property exists under the
terms of the Zoning Chapter.: N/A
5. Practical difficulties 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 Minnesota Statutes, Section 116J.06, Subd. 2,
when in harmony with this Chapter.: N/A
6. The Board of Appeals and Adjustments or the Council may not permit as a variance any use that is not allowed under
this Chapter for property in the zone where the affected person's land is located. N/A
7. The Board or Council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one-family dwelling as a two-family dwelling.
N/A
8. The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately
adjoining property.: Yes / Correct
9. The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which said land is located.
there are similar non-conforming garages in the area
10. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the
applicant.: Yes / Correct
11. The granting of the proposed variance will not in any way impair health, safety, comfort, morals, or in any other respect
be contrary to the intent of the Zoning Code.: Yes / Correct
12. The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate
demonstrable difficulty.: Yes / Correct