05-10-2021 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

FILE # LA21-000023 19 April 2021 Page 3 of 5 3.5 foot wide stair will be 4 feet from the property line. Governing Regulation: Variance (Section 78-123) In reviewing applications for variance, the Planning Commission shall consider the effect of the proposed variance upon the health, safety and welfare of the community, existing and anticipated traffic conditions, light and air, danger of fire, risk to the public safety, and the effect on values of property in the surrounding area. The Planning Commission shall consider recommending approval for variances from the literal provisions of the Zoning Code in instances where their strict enforcement would cause practical difficulties because of circumstances unique to the individual property under consideration, and shall recommend approval only when it is demonstrated that such actions will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Orono Zoning Code. Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. 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. 14, 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 width, and unique access circumstance over the easement on the rear. The garage location moves and improves a non-conforming existing setback on the west side moving the encroachment toward a lesser affected property to the east. The project results in an overall reduction in hardcover. 2. The variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan. The variances proposed to rebuild a detached garage on this nonconforming lot 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 re-construction of the detached garage on the substandard lot is reasonable. b. There are circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner; The substandard lot size is an existing condition, 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 a setback variance approval for from the lot which is substandard in width and area requirements. The project has 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 detached garage, 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