05-11-2020 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

FILE #LA20-000025 27 April 2020 Page 4 of 5 2. The variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan. The variance resulting in reconstruction of the existing cabin without footprint expansions yet within the 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. 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 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 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 cabin was not constructed by the current owners; and c. The variance will not alter the essential character of the locality. The requested variance 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 land is located. This condition is not applicable, as a residential accessory building is an allowed use in the LR-1A District. 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 proximity of the existing cabin to the lake is an existing condition which is unique to the property. 9. The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which the land is located. The location and existence of the lake yard accessory building is an existing condition unique to a small number of properties in the City, but could be applied to all other properties with lake yard accessory buildings and boathouses. 10. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. Substantial property right is provided by the principal structure. The cabin is allowed to be maintained and replaced in kind. Expansion of an existing non-conforming structure is not a right, however the building envelope is proposed to be lowered, and the proposed expansion is downward.