09-16-2019 Planning Commission Packet

Home Browse Search

FILE#LA19-000069 16 Sept 2019 Page 6 of 10 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 §462.357 Subd. 6(2)variances shall only be permitted when: 1. The variance is in harmony with the general intent and purpose of the Ordinance. Due to the scope,some of the proposed variances are not in harmony with the purpose of the Ordinance. However,the small,shallow lot does include difficulties in its small size and depth, and proximity to the lake to permit redevelopment. The lot is also challenged by Crystal Bay Road which runs through the lake yard.The average lakeshore setback is proposed to be met protecting views of the lake for adjacent properties. 2. The variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan.A number of the type of variances proposed to develop a nonconforming lot of record are consistent with the comprehensive plan,such as lot area, rear setback,lake setback, and some level of hardcover variance. However the hardcover and structural coverage levels proposed are inconsistent 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 request to permit construction of the home on the substandard lot, in the proposed location within the required 75- foot lake setback,front setback, and rear yard setback, appears to be somewhat reasonable as the property's reduced size and orientation with respect to the lakeshore, Crystal Bay Road,and adjacent properties creates difficulties. However,the requested structural and hardcover levels,amount of rear setback variance and retaining wall encroachments proposed within the lake yard appear to be unreasonable and are not supported by practical difficulties. b. There are circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner; The uniquely small size, location with respect to the lake and roadway, and required setbacks prevent a residential footprint consistent with the neighborhood.There should be consideration for variance approvals from the hardcover limitation,the lake and street setback,the rear setback and the lot area requirements. Nevertheless,the proposed hardcover and structural levels are above and beyond that which would be supported by practical difficulty; and