Laserfiche WebLink
FILE#LA21-000048 <br /> 19 July 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 /> requested hardcover level (with proposed reductions),side setback,and average <br /> lakeshore setback variances are in harmony with the Ordinance.The existing home is <br /> currently lakeward of both neighbors.The neighbors have not indicated that the <br /> upward expansion will negatively impact their existing views of the lake,and new <br /> hardcover resulting from the new deck will be offset by removals. <br /> 2. The variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan. The requested average <br /> lakeshore setback,side yard setback,and hardcover variances are consistent with the <br /> Comprehensive Plan.The deck results in a new average lakeshore setback <br /> encroachment beyond the existing footprint, however does not appear to further <br /> impact the adjacent neighbor's views from the north side. <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 expand the volume of the <br /> existing nonconforming home upwards with the addition of a deck lakeward <br /> of the average lakeshore setback appears to be reasonable on this property as <br /> there are no options for a conforming expansion of any portion of the home. <br /> The curved shoreline and extreme setbacks of the neighboring homes result in <br /> the existing non-conforming condition.The applicants have proposed <br /> hardcover removals to offset the new additions. <br /> b. There are circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner; <br /> The location of the existing home,the curved shoreline,and extreme setback <br /> location of the neighboring homes,and existing hardcover are conditions not <br /> created by the landowners;and <br /> c. The variance will not alter the essential character of the locality. It does not <br /> appear that the requested average lakeshore setback variance expand the <br /> home will adversely impact views of the lake currently enjoyed by the <br /> adjacent property owners or alter the character of the locality as many of the <br /> homes in the neighborhood have a 2nd story. Further,the applicants' proposed <br />