02-13-2017 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

FILE #16-3875 October 17, 2016 Page 3 of 5 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 ordinance is intended to reduce lake impacts (lake yard and structural coverage) and massing (structural coverage and rear yard setbacks). The proposed two story home will have a greater presence in the neighborhood, a presence perhaps mitigated by the fact the home is fairly secluded, the primary access is via a dead end gravel driveway (which this house is the second from the end) and the adjacent Crystal Bay Road is separated from the improvements with riparian vegetation and steep slopes. The Planning Commission should discuss whether the proposed structural coverage and lake yard variances are consistent with the intent. 2. The variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan. The variance allows the redevelopment of the single family lot, this improvement is consistent with the comprehensive plan. 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 property owner desires to construct a new 2299 square foot home, replacing a 1781 square foot home on a lot that has approximately 2400 square feet of buildable area. The permissible building area is shown on staff's Exhibit La. The planned expansions outside of this area do not appear to be out of character with recent variances in the area, notably for the house to the south. b. There are circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner; The slope of the lot toward the lake, the location of Crystal Bay Road, and the location of the existing watermain, all influence the buildable area for the lot, none of which was created by the landowner; and c. The variance will not alter the essential character of the locality. Many of the homes in the immediate area require some level of variance to improve the property. The two lots on either side of the subject property have obtained variances over the years. Most recently, the lot to the south received a variance from the lake yard, the average lake, rear yard and lot coverage in 2014. The new home as proposed is 2 story with a ground floor walk out. Noted above, the home will impact the neighborhood, though the Commission should discuss whether this impact is negative. The home appears to be consistent in scale