06-14-2021 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

FILE #LA21-000030 17 May 2021 Page 3 of 5 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 not in harmony with the purpose of the Ordinance. While the substandard lot has difficulties in its shape, small size and depth, and proximity to the lake, the property has reasonable use with the existing home and deck. 2. The variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan. The variances for additional hardcover development within the lake and rear yards are inconsistent 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 setback variances are requested to facilitate the creation of more outdoor living space The variance requests to allow expansion of the hardcover within setbacks is unreasonable and is not supported by the practical difficulties. b. There are circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner; The configuration and shape of the lot were not created by the owners. Variances were granted in 2018 to construct a new home on the property Resolution No. 6877 (attached as Exhibit E). However the uniqueness found in the shape, size, slope, and proximity to the lake are not difficulties which support granting of additional variances to further expand the nonconformities on the property; and c. The variance will not alter the essential character of the locality. The setback variances requested will alter the essential character of the neighborhood and when the property is viewed from the lake. 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