01-09-2017 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Council Exhibit G PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES ANALYSIS 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 variances are in harmony with the general intent and purpose of the Ordinance. The applicant proposes to construct a new residence and detached garage on a residential property which is in line with the intent of the ordinance. 2. The variances are consistent with the comprehensive plan. In addition to the residential guiding of the property, the Comprehensive Plan has directives which are put in place to protect the lake, limit massing and hardcover. The proposed plan for a new residence and detached garage results in neither an increase in structural coverage (over the permitted 15% level) nor hardcover above 25%. 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 Owners propose to construct a new home and detached garage on the property in conformance with the FEMA floodplain regulations lowest floor and MCWD's lowest opening requirements. In order to do so they are elevating the new structures on fill material. With the lake setbacks applied, the property is not wide enough to meet the requirement that the fill material extend 15 feet from the perimeter at the lowest floor elevation. In staff's opinion, this criterion is met. The detached garage will be constructed in the same footprint location as an existing detached garage. The proposed 3.5 foot increase in peak height is a combination of the owners' proposed 3 foot side wall height increase and the % foot floor elevation required by code. The new home will meet the I -R-113 district setbacks, height, massing, and the property will comply with the Tier 1 hardcover requirements. b. There are circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner; Portions of the property have a 1% annual chance of flooding. The applicant is proposing to elevate the structure in a conforming manner and location to meet the flood regulations; the relative narrowness of the property creates a difficulty in meeting the 15 -foot fill extension requirement. The location of the existing nonconforming detached garage encroaches 5.7 feet into the rear yard. Shadywood Road and the bridge over the channel are approximately 17 feet higher than grade of the Property. In staff's opinion, this criterion is met; and Page 1 of 2