06-21-2022 Planning Commission Packet

Home Browse Search

FILE#LA22-000026 21 June 2022 Page 3 of 5 Trail functions as a front for the existing home while the east lot line is the defined "front"for setback determination purposes. 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 setback variances area supported by practical difficulties due to the substandard lot • conditions and lot of record status.The requested variance for side setback for the garage addition do not appear to be in harmony with the City's goals for conforming development and is not in harmony with the Ordinance as the addition could be adjusted to meet the 10-foot setback from the easement line.The requested front setback variance may be reasonable considering the location of the existing home. 2. The variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan. Based on the location of the existing home setback variances are needed to construct the attached garage addition to the home which 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 required setbacks for the Property allow for an approximate 3,200 square foot building area;the existing home footprint extends 10 feet outside of the buildable envelope. It is reasonable to connect the garage addition on the east side of the home to utilize the existing driveway easement would require variances. b. There are circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner; The substandard size of the property, railroad right-of-way encroachment, orientation,and driveway easement access are existing conditions;there is no available land with which to make the Property conforming.The location of the driveway easement and existing home are likely driving the design and need for the setback variances; 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.