06-14-2021 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

FILE # LA21-000031 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 garage setback on the street side is shown to be in keeping with the character of the neighborhood. The garage meets/exceeds side setbacks which helps to provide the necessary open space. There is no hardcover change from the existing condition and the variance is supported by the small/narrow lot challenges. 2. The variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan. The scale and type of variance proposed to expand the upward volume of the detached garage within the rear setback while not impacting adjacent properties is 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 expansion of the garage on the substandard lot, within the required rear setback appears to be reasonable as the property’s reduced size and orientation with respect to the lake and adjacent properties creates difficulties. No encroachment to adjacent properties or hardcover expansions are proposed. b. There are circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner; If the doors faced inward, the garage would be conforming to the setback requirements. The small size and width, location with respect to Tonkawa Road, and required setback based on the overhead door prevent expansion of the garage consistent with the neighborhood. There should be consideration for variance approvals from rear setback; and c. The variance will not alter the essential character of the locality. The footprint size and overall height of the garage at approximately 23 feet is in character with the immediate neighborhood. 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