Laserfiche WebLink
FILE#LA19-0000105 <br /> 21 Jan 2020 <br /> Page 3 of 5 <br /> use of a one-family dwelling as a two-family dwelling. <br /> According to MN §462.357 Subd. 6(2)variances shall only be permitted when: <br /> 1. The variance is in harmony with the general intent and purpose of the Ordinance.The <br /> variance supports the minimal expansion of a non-conforming structure in the lake <br /> yard. Lake yard construction prohibitions are intended to maintain the natural <br /> lakeshore and encourage development away from the lake.Alternatively,the goals of <br /> average lakeshore setback include protecting views from land into the lake,the <br /> requested variances to increase the height of the existing structure the minimum <br /> amount necessary to meet the ceiling height and floodplain regulations is in harmony <br /> with the Ordinance.The most adjacent neighbors are separated from the structure <br /> and situated so that their lake views will not be impacted by the changes to the <br /> existing building.The minimal additional mass of the flat roof areas within the <br /> setbacks will not be closer to the lake than existing and will not negatively impact the <br /> views into the property from the lake.This criterion is met. <br /> 2. The variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan.The variances resulting in <br /> reconstruction of the existing sauna building without footprint expansions within the <br /> setbacks in a residential zone are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The <br /> variance to permit the upward volume expansion is solely to conform to the <br /> floodplain regulations.This criterion is met. <br /> 3. The applicant establishes that there are practical difficulties. <br /> a. The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not <br /> permitted by the official controls; The request to permit a minor upward <br /> expansion of the building lakeward of the average lakeshore setback and <br /> within the 75-foot lake setback appear to be reasonable;the flat roof design <br /> minimized any potential negative impacts;the mature vegetation, <br /> topography,and property orientation separate the subject property from the <br /> adjacent neighbors.This criterion is met. <br /> b. There are circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner; <br /> The applicant proposes to reconstruct a nonconforming building to improve <br /> functionality for the owners.The sauna building was not constructed by the <br /> current owners; and <br /> c. The variance will not alter the essential character of the locality. The requested <br /> variances will not result in the property being out of character with the <br /> neighborhood;will not expand the footprint of the building;or result in <br /> additional encroachment into the setbacks toward the lake.The new <br /> encroachment will not alter the character of the locality.This criterion is met. <br /> Additionally City Code 78-123 provides additional parameters within which a variance may be <br /> granted as follows: <br /> 4. Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. Economic <br /> considerations have not been a factor in the variance approval determination. <br /> 5. Practical difficulties also include but are not limited to inadequate access to direct <br /> sunlight for solar energy systems.Variances shall be granted for earth-sheltered <br /> construction as defined in Minn. Stat. § 216C.06,subd. 2, when in harmony with Orono <br /> City Code Chapter 78.This condition is not applicable. <br /> 6. The board or the council may not permit as a variance any use that is not permitted <br /> under Orono City Code Chapter 78 for property in the zone where the affected person's <br />