Laserfiche WebLink
FILE#LA19-000024 <br /> 15 April 2019 <br /> Page 3 of 5 <br /> The proposed improvements are residential in nature, reasonable from a <br /> residential scope. <br /> b. There are circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner; <br /> The applicant requires a solution to the failing well room cap which will protect <br /> the home; the proposed reconstructed patio with landings do not result in an <br /> expansion of hardcover within the 75-foot setback. The existing patios and <br /> basement well room were not created by the current owner; and <br /> c. The variance will not alter the essential character of the locality. The variances <br /> to permit reorientation of the patio structure within the 75-foot setback will be <br /> more functional, do not result in an expansion of the nonconformity, and will <br /> not change character of the locality.This condition is met. <br /> Additionally City Code 78-123 provides additional parameters within which a variance may be <br /> granted as follows: <br /> 4. Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. Economic <br /> considerations have not been a factor in the variance approval determination. <br /> 5. Practical difficulties also include but are not limited to inadequate access to direct sunlight <br /> for solar energy systems. Variances shall be granted for earth-sheltered construction as <br /> defined in Minn.Stat. §216C.06,subd. 2,when in harmony with Orono City Code Chapter <br /> 78.This condition is not applicable. <br /> 6. The board or the council may not permit as a variance any use that is not permitted under <br /> Orono City Code Chapter 78 for property in the zone where the affected person's land is <br /> located. This condition is not applicable, as a lakeshore patio is an allowed accessory <br /> use in the LR-1A District. <br /> 7. The board or council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one-family dwelling <br /> as a two-family dwelling.This condition is not applicable. <br /> 8. The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such <br /> property or immediately adjoining property.The property is an existing lot of record,the <br /> home on the property has existed for nearly 100 years, and the property contains a <br /> large number of mature trees for screening.The topography of the property increases <br /> as it moves away from the lake and the owner feels the proposed improvements are <br /> necessary for access and are logical and will not adversely impact adjacent properties. <br /> This criterion is met. <br /> 9. The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which <br /> the land is located.The applicant's proposal does not appear to be out of character with <br /> the area. The elevation of the patio area and the existing vegetation screen the <br /> improvements from the lake, the proposal does not involve an expansion of the <br /> nonconformities,only a reorientation,and will not encroach nearer to the lake than the <br /> existing.This criterion is met. <br /> 10. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a <br /> substantial property right of the applicant. Granting a lake setback variance and <br /> hardcover variance to allow the reconstruction and reorientation of the patio within <br /> the 75-foot lake setback is reasonable and necessary to preserve the property rights of <br /> the owner. <br /> 11. The granting of the proposed variance will not in any way impair health, safety, comfort <br /> or morals, or in any other respect be contrary to the intent of this chapter. Granting the <br /> lake setback variance and hardcover variance to allowing the existing patio to be <br /> reconstructed and reconfigured as proposed will not adversely impact health, safety, <br /> comfort or morals, or in any way be contrary to the ordinances. <br />