08-12-2019 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

FILE # LA19-00051 15 July 2019 Page 2 of 4 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 §462.357 Subd. 6(2) variances shall only be permitted when: 1. The variance is in harmony with the general intent and purpose of the Ordinance. The intent of the lake yard setback is to preserve the natural lakeshore and not permit structure or hardcover in this area. Retaining walls have no visual impact as they are for slope stability and designed to be below grade. 2. The variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan. The requested variance is consistent with the residential goals within 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 residential. The proposed improvements are residential in nature, and reasonable from a residential scope. b. There are circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner; the proposed subterranean retaining walls do not result in hardcover exceeding 25% for the property and the walls are excluded from the calculation total. The slope failure requires repair to prevent further damage; and c. The variance will not alter the essential character of the locality. The variance to permit construction of the subterranean walls to repair and support the slope within the 75 -foot setback will not be visible; with the proposed plantings will function for stability and to create a vegetated natural looking slope. The project will not change 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 have not been a factor in the variance approval determination. 5. 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.