02-10-2020 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

FILE #LA19-0000105 21 Jan 2020 Page 3 of 5 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 variance supports the minimal expansion of a non -conforming structure in the lake yard. Lake yard construction prohibitions are intended to maintain the natural lakeshore and encourage development away from the lake. Alternatively, the goals of average lakeshore setback include protecting views from land into the lake, the requested variances to increase the height of the existing structure the minimum amount necessary to meet the ceiling height and floodplain regulations is in harmony with the Ordinance. The most adjacent neighbors are separated from the structure and situated so that their lake views will not be impacted by the changes to the existing building. The minimal additional mass of the flat roof areas within the setbacks will not be closer to the lake than existing and will not negatively impact the views into the property from the lake. This criterion is met. 2. The variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan. The variances resulting in reconstruction of the existing sauna building without footprint expansions within the setbacks in a residential zone are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The variance to permit the upward volume expansion is solely to conform to the floodplain regulations. This criterion is met. 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 a minor upward expansion of the building lakeward of the average lakeshore setback and within the 75 -foot lake setback appear to be reasonable; the flat roof design minimized any potential negative impacts; the mature vegetation, topography, and property orientation separate the subject property from the adjacent neighbors. This criterion is met. b. There are circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner; The applicant proposes to reconstruct a nonconforming building to improve functionality for the owners. The sauna building was not constructed by the current owners; and c. The variance will not alter the essential character of the locality. The requested variances will not result in the property being out of character with the neighborhood; will not expand the footprint of the building; or result in additional encroachment into the setbacks toward the lake. The new encroachment will not alter the character of the locality. This criterion is met. 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. 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