Laserfiche WebLink
FILE#LA21-000069 <br /> 15 November 2021 <br /> Page 4 of 6 <br /> b. There are circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner; S <br /> The current property owners did not create the nonconformities.The applicant <br /> stated that the original location of the home limits opportunities for upward or <br /> footprint expansions. Staff finds the current existing home is nonconforming <br /> and can be maintained. The new encroachment at the proposed setback is <br /> unreasonable.This criteria is not met;and <br /> c. The variance will not alter the essential character of the locality.The variance to <br /> permit an increase in the overall massing of the home with a 1.5-foot setback <br /> for the home (and zero lot line setback for the eave overhang) will alter the <br /> character of the neighborhood. <br /> Additionally City Code 78-123 provides additional parameters within which a variance may be <br /> granted as follows: <br /> 4. Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. Economic <br /> considerations have not been a factor in the variance approval determination. <br /> 5. Practical difficulties also include but are not limited to inadequate access to direct sunlight <br /> for solar energy systems. Variances shall be granted for earth-sheltered construction as <br /> defined in Minn. Stat. § 216C.06, subd. 17, when in harmony with Orono City Code <br /> Chapter 78.This condition is not applicable. <br /> 6. The board or the council may not permit as a variance any use that is not permitted under <br /> Orono City Code Chapter 78 for property in the zone where the affected person's land is <br /> located. This condition is not applicable, as residential improvements are an allowed <br /> use in the LR-1B District. <br /> 7. The board or council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one-family dwelling <br /> as a two-family dwelling.This condition is not applicable. <br /> 8. The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such <br /> property or immediately adjoining property. The unique conditions applying to this <br /> property are specific to the property. <br /> 9. The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which <br /> the land is located. The existing condition of the nonconforming home location on this <br /> property are specific to the property.The setback is out of character. <br /> 10. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a <br /> substantial property right of the applicant.The applicant states the project is necessary <br /> for the preservation of the owners' property right. Staff finds there are alternative <br /> opportunities to expand the living space of the home which would be more reasonable <br /> yet would still require a setback variance. <br /> 11. The granting of the proposed variance will not in any way impair health, safety, comfort <br /> or morals,or in any other respect be contrary to the intent of this chapter.The proposed <br /> setback is not supported by practical difficulty and may be contrary to the intent of the <br /> zoning chapter. <br /> 12. The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but <br /> is necessary to alleviate demonstrable difficulty. The proposed massing encroachment <br /> over the existing footprint serves as a convenience to the applicant as they have <br /> reasonable use of the property with the single family home. There are alternate <br /> methods of constructing the additions without such a severe encroachment. <br />