Laserfiche WebLink
FILE#LA21-000032 <br /> 17 May 2021 <br /> Page 3 of 5 <br /> • <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 <br /> anticipated traffic conditions, light and air, danger of fire, risk to the public safety, and the effect <br /> on values of property in the surrounding area. The Planning Commission shall consider <br /> recommending approval for variances from the literal provisions of the Zoning Code in instances <br /> where their strict enforcement would cause practical difficulties because of circumstances unique <br /> to the individual property under consideration, and shall recommend approval only when it is <br /> demonstrated that such actions will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Orono Zoning <br /> Code. Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. Practical difficulties <br /> also include but are not limited to inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. <br /> Variances shall be granted for earth-sheltered construction as defined in Minn.Stat. §216C.06, <br /> subd. 14,when in harmony with this chapter. The board or the council may not permit as a <br /> variance any use that is not permitted under this chapter for property in the zone where the <br /> affected person's land is located.The board or council may permit as a variance the temporary <br /> 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 <br /> lot width and lot area variances area supported by practical difficulties due to the <br /> substandard lot conditions and lot of record status.The variances for rear and front <br /> setback for development of the lot do not appear to be in harmony with the City's <br /> goals for conforming development and is not in harmony with the Ordinance as there <br /> • are reasonable opportunities for development within these setbacks. <br /> 2. The variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan.The level of setback variances <br /> requested to permit 15.3'front and 44.4'rear setbacks for development of the <br /> Property are inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan and are not supported by <br /> necessary practical difficulties inherent to the Property.This criterion is not 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 application of the required setbacks for <br /> the Property allows for an approximate 3,200 square foot building area;the <br /> proposed home is shown to have a 2,800 square foot footprint. Reasonable <br /> use of the Property is established by allowing construction of a new residence <br /> on this substandard lot of record. This criterion is not met. <br /> b. There are circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner; <br /> The substandard size of the property and easement access are existing <br /> conditions;there is no available land with which to make the Property <br /> conforming. State Statute and City Code allow for redevelopment of a <br /> nonconforming lot of record however the setback variances do not appear to <br /> be supported by practical difficulty.The applicant's site design does not <br /> appear to make use of the allowed building envelope; and <br /> c. The variance will not alter the essential character of the locality. The <br /> orientation and placement of the home on the property does not appear to <br /> negatively impact the local neighborhood character. <br /> Additionally City Code 78-123 provides additional parameters within which a variance may be <br /> • granted as follows: <br />