07-18-2022 Planning Commission Packet

Home Browse Search

FILE#LA22-000034 18 July 2022 Page 3 of 4 • The existing slope of the lake yard was not the result of actions by the owner; and c. The variance will not alter the essential character of the locality. There are existing retaining walls in the lake yard.The variance to permit the expanded retaining wall structure within the 75-foot lake setback will help to maintain the existing slope and character of the area. 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 defined in Minn. Stat. § 216C.06,subd. 17,when in harmony with Orono City Code Chapter 78.This condition is not applicable. 6. The board or the council may not permit as a variance any use that is not permitted under Orono City Code Chapter 78 for property in the zone where the affected person's land is located.This condition is not applicable, as residential improvements are permitted to support a residential use in the LR-1B District. 7. The board or council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one-family dwelling as a two-family dwelling.This condition is not applicable. 8. The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property.The slope of the property combined with the pre-existing improvements are unique conditions affecting the subject property. • 9. The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which the land is located.The steep slope, existing timber wall configuration, and the existing improvements create conditions which do not apply to all of the adjacent properties. 10. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. Granting a lake setback variance to allow the retaining walls within the 75-foot lake setback to be reconstructed with an expanded footprint is reasonable,is a better solution long-term,and is necessary to preserve the rights of the owner.The variance is supported by the vulnerable slope on the property. 11. The granting of the proposed variance will not in any way impair health, safety, comfort or morals,or in any other respect be contrary to the intent of this chapter. Granting the lake yard setback variance allowing the retaining walls within the 75-foot lake setback will not adversely impact health,safety,comfort or morals, or in any way be contrary to the ordinances. 12. The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable difficulty.The proposed walls within the lake yard will continue to preserve the integrity of the slope and there is no conforming location to install the retaining walls which would protect the slope. Preserving the existing wall is necessary for the protection of the slope and the lake. The Commission may recommend or Council may impose conditions in granting of variances. Any conditions imposed must be directly related to and must bear a rough proportionality to the impact created by the variance. No variance shall be granted or changed beyond the use permitted in this chapter in the district where such land is located.