Laserfiche WebLink
FILE#LA21-000026 <br /> 19 April 2021 <br /> Page 4 of 6 <br /> Governing Regulation:Variance(Section 78-123) • <br /> In reviewing applications for variance, the Planning Commission shall consider the effect of the <br /> proposed variance upon the health,safety and welfare of the community, existing and anticipated <br /> traffic conditions, light and air, danger of fire, risk to the public safety, and the effect on values of <br /> property in the surrounding area. The Planning Commission shall consider recommending approval for <br /> variances from the literal provisions of the Zoning Code in instances where their strict enforcement <br /> would cause practical difficulties because of circumstances unique to the individual property under <br /> consideration, and shall recommend approval only when it is demonstrated that such actions will be <br /> in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Orono Zoning Code. Economic considerations alone do not <br /> constitute practical difficulties. Practical difficulties also include but are not limited to inadequate <br /> access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems.Variances shall be granted for earth-sheltered <br /> construction as defined in Minn. Stat. §216C.06, subd. 14,when in harmony with this chapter. The <br /> board or the council may not permit as a variance any use that is not permitted under this chapter <br /> for property in the zone where the affected person's land is located.The board or council may permit <br /> as a variance the temporary use of a one-family dwelling as a two-family dwelling. <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 variance <br /> supports the minimal expansion of a non-conforming structure within in the lake yard and <br /> average lakeshore setback.Lake yard construction prohibitions are intended to maintain the <br /> natural lakeshore and encourage development away from the lake.Alternatively, the goals <br /> of average lakeshore setback include protecting views from land into the lake,the requested <br /> variances to increase the height of the existing boathouse the minimum amount necessary <br /> to meet the ceiling height and floodplain regulations is in harmony with the Ordinance.The <br /> most adjacent neighbors are situated so that their lake views will not be impacted by the <br /> changes to the existing boathouse.The minimal additional mass of the flat roof areas within <br /> the setbacks will not be closer to the lake than existing and will not negatively impact the <br /> views into the property from the lake. Additionally,the minimal expansions proposed to the <br /> nonconforming carriage house building will not adversely impact the adjacent property,nor <br /> will they result in a significant massing increase within the required rear and side yard <br /> setback areas.The requested variances to increase the height of the existing carriage house <br /> garage ceiling while maintaining a livable height in the upper level are the minimum amount <br /> necessary to meet the ceiling height needs.This criterion is met. <br /> 2. The variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan. The variances resulting in <br /> reconstruction of the existing buildings (without footprint expansions) within the setbacks <br /> in a residential zone are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The variance to permit <br /> the minimal upward volume expansions is solely to upgrade the functionality of the carriage <br /> house,as well as allow the boathouse to conform to the floodplain regulations.This criterion <br /> is met. <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 minor upward expansions <br /> of the buildings within the setbacks appear to be reasonable;the flat roof design of <br /> the boathouse minimizes any potential negative impacts; the mature vegetation, <br /> and location of neighboring homes separate the buildings from the adjacent <br /> neighbors.This criterion is met. <br /> b. There are circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner; The <br /> applicant proposes to reconstruct two nonconforming buildings to improve • <br />