01-08-2018 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

FILE # 17-3979 20 Nov 2017 Page 3 of 5 1. The variance is in harmony with the general intent and purpose of the Ordinance. The home and deck on the property in 2016 where conforming with respect to lake and average lakeshore setbacks. The proposed screen porch will encroach approximately 3 feet into the 75 -foot setback; and approximately 20 feet into the average lakeshore setback line. Neighbors have indicated that the screen porch encroachment into the average lakeshore setback does not block their views of the lake, however there exist other reasonable areas to expand indoor/outdoor spaces without encroaching into setbacks. At this point, the minimal 75 -foot setback variance requested is purely for the applicants' convenience as the screen porch is already constructed; therefore this criterion is not met. 2. The variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan. The screen porch addition to the existing home could be constructed in a conforming location and is not consistent with the comprehensive plan. This criterion is not met. 3. The applicant establishes that there are practical difficulties. a. The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the official controls; The screen porch addition will increase the bulk and massing on the property within the average lakeshore setback (and to a minor extent the 75 -foot setback) which is currently conforming. The improvements could be constructed in a way which would conform to the code. This criterion is not met. b. There are circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner; The applicant has not demonstrated that the property is unique to justify the need for a variance. This criterion is not met; and c. The variance will not alter the essential character of the locality. The visual massing of structure within the average lakeshore setback and additional hardcover within the 75 foot setback will alter the character of the locality, particularly when viewed from the lake. This criterion is not met. Additionally City Code 78-123 provides additional parameters within which a variance may be granted as follows: 4. Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. Economic considerations have not been a factor in the variance approval determination. 5. Practical difficulties also 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 Minn. Stat. § 216C.06, subd. 2, when in harmony with Orono City Code Chapter 78. This condition is not applicable. 6. The board or the council may not permit as a variance any use that is not permitted under Orono City Code Chapter 78 for property in the zone where the affected person's land is located. This condition is not applicable, as the use for a screen porch addition to the home is an allowed use in the LR -1113 District. 7. The board or council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one -family dwelling as a two-family dwelling. This condition is not applicable. 8. The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property. The home on the subject property and the neighboring homes are mostly in line and situated ±30 feet from the rear/street property lines resulting in a narrow area for improvements conforming to the average lakeshore setback line. This condition applies to the immediately adjacent properties. This criterion is met.