Laserfiche WebLink
FILE#LA21-000007 <br /> 16 Feb 2021 <br /> Page 3 of 4 <br /> The proposed volume"expansions" resulting from the railing are set in from the <br /> property lines as they are inset from the edges of the building.The encroachment <br /> does not increase the massing of the home. <br /> 2. The variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan.The variances proposed to <br /> improve a rooftop patio area on this nonconforming lot of record are consistent with <br /> 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 request to permit installation of the <br /> rooftop railings on the home on the substandard lot is reasonable. <br /> b. There are circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner; <br /> The substandard lot size and location of the home are existing conditions. <br /> Therefore there is no available land with which to make the property more <br /> conforming.The limited yard/open space availability is a condition not created <br /> by the owners.There should be consideration for variance approval for a <br /> minimal railing encroachment within the setbacks above the existing building. <br /> The house addition and renovation have been designed with an effort toward <br /> working within the existing building and required setbacks without sacrificing <br /> functionality;and <br /> c. The variance will not alter the essential character of the locality.The variances <br /> are requested in order to permit the creation of additional outdoor space with <br /> minimal impact to massing or additional encroachments into setbacks,which <br /> is reasonable.The project should not alter the character of the neighborhood. <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 <br /> sunlight for solar energy systems.Variances shall be granted for earth-sheltered <br /> construction as defined in Minn. Stat. § 216C.06,subd. 2, when in harmony with Orono <br /> City Code Chapter 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 <br /> under Orono City Code Chapter 78 for property in the zone where the affected person's <br /> land is located.This condition is not applicable, as improvements to a residential home <br /> are allowed in the LR-1C District. <br /> 7. The board or council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one-family <br /> dwelling 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.The property's substandard size,depth, <br /> and unique configuration creates difficulties which do not apply to many of the <br /> properties in the same neighborhood. Prior to the renovation,the existing non- <br /> residential-looking building was out of character with the neighborhood.The current <br /> renovation and the proposed railing encroachments will make the building appear <br /> more residential in character. <br /> 9. The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which <br /> the land is located.The property's substandard size,depth, house location,in addition <br /> to the unique configuration creates difficulties which apply to very few properties in <br /> the City. <br />