Laserfiche WebLink
LA20-000054 <br /> Sept 21,2020 <br /> Page 3 of 4 <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 /> intent of the ordinance is to have larger setbacks for improvements on lots without <br /> street frontage. The proposed addition is not in harmony with the intent of the <br /> ordinance. <br /> 2. The variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan. The addition and use of the <br /> property are consistent with the comprehensive plan. <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 use of the property for a deck and porch <br /> addition to an existing single family home are in line with the permitted <br /> controls. <br /> b. There are circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner; <br /> The property has an existing deck (2016) that was constructed to the setback <br /> line. The applicant wishes to extend and enhance the deck and add a 3-season <br /> porch. The applicant stated the existing deck and setbacks are practical <br /> difficulties for the owner to have enjoyable space. Staff finds the owner has <br /> reasonable use of the lot with existing deck and single family home. There are <br /> also other conforming locations that would allow for addition to the home. and <br /> c. The variance will not alter the essential character of the locality. The applicant <br /> states the proposed addition would not alter the character of the neighborhood <br /> and it would not impact the neighbors. There is also significant large maple <br /> trees and vegetation surrounding the home. <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 sunlight <br /> for solar energy systems. Variances shall be granted for earth-sheltered construction as <br /> defined in Minn.Stat. §216C.06,subd. 2,when in harmony with Orono City Code Chapter <br /> 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 under <br /> Orono City Code Chapter 78 for property in the zone where the affected person's land is <br /> located.This condition is not applicable,as a single family home is an allowed use in the <br /> LR-1C District. <br /> 7. The board or council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one-family dwelling <br /> as a two-family dwelling.This condition is not applicable. <br /> 8. The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such <br /> property or immediately adjoining property. Staff finds that following the code the <br /> conditions for a back lot are not peculiar and are applies to all lots that are platted as <br /> back lots. <br /> 9. The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which <br /> the land is located. The applicant states the back lot restrictions are overly burdensome <br /> with 150%setback requirements. Staff finds that this rule applies to all lots platted as <br /> back lots. <br /> 10. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a <br /> substantial property right of the applicant. The applicant states the existing deck(2016) <br /> extends 7 feet from the home. The applicant is requesting an additional 3 feet to create <br />