06-14-2021 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

FILE #LA21-000032 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 lot width and lot area variances area supported by practical difficulties due to the substandard lot conditions and lot of record status. The variances for rear and front setback for development of the lot do not appear to be in harmony with the City’s goals for conforming development and is not in harmony with the Ordinance as there are reasonable opportunities for development within these setbacks. 2. The variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan. The level of setback variances requested to permit 15.3’ front and 44.4’ rear setbacks for development of the Property are inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan and are not supported by necessary practical difficulties inherent to the Property. This criterion is not met. 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 application of the required setbacks for the Property allows for an approximate 3,200 square foot building area; the proposed home is shown to have a 2,800 square foot footprint. Reasonable use of the Property is established by allowing construction of a new residence on this substandard lot of record. This criterion is not met. b. There are circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner; The substandard size of the property and easement access are existing conditions; there is no available land with which to make the Property conforming. State Statute and City Code allow for redevelopment of a nonconforming lot of record however the setback variances do not appear to be supported by practical difficulty. The applicant’s site design does not appear to make use of the allowed building envelope; and c. The variance will not alter the essential character of the locality. The orientation and placement of the home on the property does not appear to negatively impact the local neighborhood character. Additionally City Code 78-123 provides additional parameters within which a variance may be granted as follows: