02-12-2018 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

FILE #18-3997 16 Jan 2018 Page 3 of 5 Governing Regulation: Variance (Section 78-123) In reviewing applications for variance, the Planning Commission shall consider the effect of the proposed variance upon the health, safety and welfare of the community, existing and anticipated traffic conditions, light and air, danger of fire, risk to the public safety, and the effect on values of property in the surrounding area. The Planning Commission shall consider recommending approval for variances from the literal provisions of the Zoning Code in instances where their strict enforcement would cause practical difficulties because of circumstances unique to the individual property under consideration, and shall recommend approval only when it is demonstrated that such actions will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Orono Zoning Code. Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. 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 this chapter. The board or the council may not permit as a variance any use that is not permitted under this chapter for property in the zone where the affected person's land is located. The board or council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one -family dwelling as a two-family dwelling. According to MN §462.537 Subd. 6(2) variances shall only be permitted when: 1. The variance is in harmony with the general intent and purpose of the Ordinance. The requested average lakeshore setback variance is in harmony with the Ordinance as the most adjacent neighbors are situated so that their lake views will not be impacted by the changes to the existing home. The additional mass of the roof areas within the 75 - foot setback will not be closer to the lake than existing and will not negatively impact the views into the property from the lake. This criterion is met. 2. The variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan. The variances resulting in a permit for construction of modifications to the residence without footprint expansions within the setbacks in a residential zone are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. This criterion is 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 request to permit construction of the proposed roof changes lakeward of the average lakeshore setback and within the 75 -foot lake setback appear to be reasonable as the owners of the adjacent properties previously stated no objection to the plans; the mature vegetation, topography, and home orientation separate the subject property from the adjacent neighbors. This criterion is met. b. There are circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner; Based on the curvature of the shoreline, the subject property, and therefore the subject home, extends further into the lake than the neighboring properties. Also because of the shoreline curvature, the home to the north is set back further from the lake than the subject home resulting in the severe average lakeshore setback applied to the Property. This criterion is met; and c. The variance will not alter the essential character of the locality. The requested variances will not result in the subject home being out of character with the neighborhood; will not expand the footprint of the home; or result in additional encroachment into the setbacks toward the lake. This criterion is met.