03-09-2020 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

FILE # LA20-000005 18 February 2020 Page 4 of 6 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. 2, 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 variances for expansion of non-conforming structures in the lake yard are not supported by practical difficulties. Lake yard construction prohibitions are intended to maintain the natural lakeshore and encourage development away from the lake. Additionally, the goals of the average lakeshore setback requirement include protecting views from land into the lake, the requested variances to expand the volume of the existing boathouse are not in harmony with the Ordinance. The additional mass of the roof areas within the setbacks result in an increase of the building height closer to the lake than existing and may negatively impact the views into the property from the lake. The reorientation of the boathouse egress, and reconstruction of the lakeside deck with an expanded footprint and elevation are not in harmony with the Ordinance. This criterion is not met. 2. The variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan. The variances resulting in modifications to the existing boathouse with a volume expansion and a minor footprint expansion within the setbacks in a residential zone are inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The changes are cosmetic and are not supported by necessary practical difficulties inherent to the land. The reconstruction and reorientation of the lake deck were not contemplated with the original approvals, and result in an increase in 0-75’ zone hardcover which is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 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 reasonable use of the property is established with the principal structure. The applicant suggests that reasonable use extends to cosmetic improvements to a non-conforming building and structure which are not in-kind and therefore not protected by statute. The request to permit expansion of the boathouse lakeward of the average lakeshore setback and within the 75-foot lake setback do not appear to be reasonable. The reconstruction and reorientation of the lake deck were not contemplated with the original approvals, and result in an increase in 0- 75’ zone hardcover which is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. This criterion is not met. b. There are circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner; The applicant states that the boat house supersedes the homeowners ownership of the property. This is not justification necessary support the new