08-13-2020 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

FILE # LA20-000043 20 July 2020 Page 4 of 5 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 this chapter. The board or the council may not permit as a variance any use that is not permitted under this chapter for property in the zone where the affected person's land is located. The board or council may permit as a variance the temporary 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 proposed variances are in harmony with the purpose of the Ordinance. The substandard lot has difficulties in its small size and depth, and unique “landlocked” relationship with the surrounding properties. The house location improves a non-conforming existing setback by 23 feet and is shown to be conforming protecting views of the lake for adjacent properties and limiting 75-foot hardcover. 2. The variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan. The number and type of variances proposed to develop this nonconforming lot of record are consistent with the comprehensive plan. 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 construction of the home on the substandard lot is reasonable. b. There are circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner; The substandard size is an existing condition, the property owners have attempted to acquire additional land via purchase or easement and have been unsuccessful. Therefore there is no available land with which to make the property more conforming. The restricted driveway access and lack of off-site parking availability are challenges not created by the owners. There should be consideration for variance approvals from the lot width and area requirements. The house and hardcover have been designed with an effort toward limiting the additional hardcover without sacrificing functionality; and c. The variance will not alter the essential character of the locality. The variances are requested in order to permit construction of a home, which is reasonable. 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 home is an allowed use in the LR-1C-1 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 property’s substandard size, depth, and unique configuration creates difficulties which also apply to many of the properties in the same neighborhood. The proposed hardcover level is not out of character. 9. The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which the land is located. The property’s substandard size, depth, in addition to the unique configuration creates difficulties which apply to very few properties in the City. The neighboring property, 3260 North Shore Drive, has a similar landlocked challenge, however the owner of that property also owns the landlocked lot providing driveway access.