06-10-2019 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

FILE # 19-28 May 20, 2019 Page 3 of 5 while not introducing additional density. The access can be provided via an easement, and the nature of these lots do not lend themselves to further subdivision, i.e. density. 2. The variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan. The use of the property remains residential, 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 use of the property remains the same. b. There are circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner; The condition of the property prior to development, configured as three separate lots, was not created by the developer. Peninsula and dead end and c. The variance will not alter the essential character of the locality. The variance, allowing access to the back lot via an easement versus an outlot will not be discernable to the character of the locality. 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 alone have not been a factor in the variance approval determination. S. 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. 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 applicant does not demonstrate any special conditions. 9. The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which the land is located. The applicant does not demonstrate any special conditions. The lot is within a peninsula, and the potential to extend the drive beyond the subdivision is not likely. 10. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. This is not the case here. The right of a dock within a lagoon or cove is not a protected right. The adjacent property has lake frontage on the bay side, allowing a dock for this lake property. 11. The granting of the proposed variance will not in any way impair health, safety, comfort or morals, or in any other respect be contrary to the intent of this chapter. The variance would allow the replatting of the lots without the provision of an outlot. The applicant states that this will not impact the health, welfare etc. not requiring the outlot in front lot/ back lot could have far reaching consequences related to lake densities and access questions in the future. 12. The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable difficulty. The variance does seem to be a convenience. The applicant's argument that the dock was "approved in the original