Laserfiche WebLink
FILE #LA19-000013 <br />15 April 2019 <br />Page 3 of 4 <br /> <br />1. The variance is in harmony with the general intent and purpose of the Ordinance. The <br />variances are minimal and generally consistent with the intent of the ordinance. This <br />criterion is met. <br />2. The variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan. The requested variances are <br />consistent with the residential goals within the comprehensive plan. This criterion is <br />met. <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 minimal changes to the reconstructed <br />lakeside deck lakeward of the average lakeshore setback are reasonable <br />residential property. This criterion is met. <br />b. There are circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner; <br />The property’s orientation; the distance separation between the subject home <br />and the neighboring homes; the existing trees separating the homes on either <br />side combined with the elevation in relation to the lake result in a unique <br />circumstance allowing for the decks to be almost completely screened from the <br />adjacent homes; and <br />c. The variance will not alter the essential character of the locality. The changes to <br />the existing lakeside deck are minimal, will be generally screened from the <br />neighboring homes, and will not adversely impact views of the lake from the <br />neighboring homes. 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 residential decks are an allowed use in the <br />LR-1B 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 home and decks are existing and there <br />are mature property line trees and arborvitae which provide screening. The topography <br />also situates the applicant’s home and decks out of direct view of the neighbors, the <br />decks will not adversely impact adjacent properties. 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. 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. The applicant’s request to rebuild the existing <br />lakeside deck in a more functional footprint is reasonable and necessary. This statement <br />is true.