09-19-2022 Planning Commission Packet

Metadata

Thumbnails

Annotations

FILE#LA22-000036 19 September 2022 Page 4 of 6 consistent with the intent of the ordinance.The hardcover level proposed is not consistent with • the hardcover regulations. 2. The variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan.The variances resulting in improvements to a home in a residential zone are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. However,the proposed encroachments lakeward of the average lakeshore setback line and the hardcover level proposed are not 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 applicant is proposing to use the property in a manner consistent with the LR-1C district. Reasonable use of the property is afforded with the residential building on the property and the permitted improvement of the addition.The structural changes proposed within the average lakeshore setback resulting from the new gable roof may not be reasonable as it will increase the mass of the home/roof which may impact neighbors'views of the lake.The deck and the required railings proposed within the average lakeshore setback also limit the views of the lake from adjacent properties,and is not reasonable. b. There are circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner; The location of the existing home on the property is the limiting factor and was not constructed by the current owner; and c. The variance will not alter the essential character of the locality. The variance to permit an increase in hardcover over 25%as well as the overall massing volume of the home within the side yard and average lakeshore setbacks has the potential to alter the character of the neighborhood. Additionally City Code 78-123 provides additional parameters within which a variance may be granted as 411 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 an allowed use in the LR-1C District. However the hardcover level and encroachments into the average lakeshore setback are not permitted within the ordinance. 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.There are a number of properties on Casco Point which are situated nearly in line with neighboring homes similarly to the subject property. The conditions applying to this property are not unique to the property. 9. The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which the land is located.The existing condition of the nonconforming home location on this property is not specific to the property.The setback variance requested would be out of character and would limit the light, air,and open space for the adjacent neighbors. 10. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant.The applicant states the project is necessary for the preservation of