Laserfiche WebLink
LA20-000066 <br />October 19, 2020 <br />Page 3 of 4 <br /> <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. 2, when in harmony with Orono City Code Chapter <br />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 the use for a residential home is an allowed <br />conditional 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 home currently sits within the setback <br />and the addition is not going to change the setback from the lake. <br />9. The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which <br />the land is located. The proposed addition will not change the current setbacks from the <br />lake and meets all other zoning setback requirements. The location of the existing home <br />is unique. <br />10. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a <br />substantial property right of the applicant. The existing home can be re-built in kind, the <br />proposed addition is necessary to permit the property owners continued enjoyment of <br />their property. The addition is located in a location which serves the intent and goals of <br />the ordinance by minimizing visual impacts to the lake. <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 />project will not impair the health, safety, comfort, or morals of the public. <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. Granting of the variance will resolve and <br />alleviate a demonstrated practical difficulty. <br /> <br />The Commission may recommend or Council may impose conditions in granting of variances. <br />Any conditions imposed must be directly related to and must bear a rough proportionality to the <br />impact created by the variance. No variance shall be granted or changed beyond the use <br />permitted in this chapter in the district where such land is located. <br /> <br />Public Comments <br />The Applicant submitted two emails from neighbors in support of the project. <br /> <br />Issues for Consideration <br />1. Does the Planning Commission find that that the property owner proposes to use the <br />property in a reasonable manner which is not permitted by an official control? <br />2. Does the Planning Commission find that the variance(s), if granted, will not alter the <br />essential character of the neighborhood? <br /> <br />Planning Staff Recommendation <br />Planning Staff recommends approval of the average lakeshore setback variance. <br /> <br />148 <br />148