05-11-2020 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. ________________________ 3 5. Applicant has applied for the following variance: a. Average Lakeshore Setback Variance 6. In considering this application for the variance, the Council has considered the advice and recommendation of the staff and 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. ANALYSIS: 1. “Variances shall only be permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the ordinance . . . .” The variance supports the minimal expansion of a non- conforming structure in the average lake setback area. The goals of average lakeshore setback include protecting views from land into the lake, the requested variance to increase the volume of the building by lowering the existing floor while reducing the roof volume 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 and will not negatively impact the views into the property from the lake. This criterion is met. 2. “Variances shall only be permitted . . . when the variances are consistent with the comprehensive plan.” The variance resulting in reconstruction of the existing cabin without footprint expansions yet within the average lakeshore setback in a residential zone are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The variance to permit the downward volume expansion is offset by the lowering of the overall roof peak height. This criterion is met. 3. “Variances may be granted when the applicant for the variance establishes that there are practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance. ‘Practical difficulties,’ as used in connection with the granting of a variance, means that: a. The property owner in question proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner, however, the proposed use is not permitted by the official controls. The request to permit a minor downward expansion of the building lakeward of the average lakeshore setback appears to be reasonable as the neighbors’ views are not negatively impacted; the flat roof design minimized any potential negative impacts; the mature vegetation, topography, and property orientation separate the Property from the adjacent neighbors. This criterion is met.