Laserfiche WebLink
FILE #LA22-000055 <br />21 Nov 2022 <br />Page 4 of 6 <br /> <br /> <br />not identified necessary practical difficulties inherent to the land supporting their requests. The <br />increase in structural massing within the setbacks in such close proximity to the OHWL is <br />inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. This criterion is not met. <br /> <br />3. The applicant establishes that there are practical difficulties. <br />a. The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted <br />by the official controls; Reasonable use of the Property is established with the existing <br />principal structure. The request to permit expansion of the home lakeward of the <br />average lakeshore setback and within the 75-foot lake setback is not reasonable. The <br />proposal results in an increase of building mass within the 0-75’ and average lakeshore <br />setback areas are not reasonable. Additionally the variance to install new hardcover <br />areas proposed within the 75-foot setback is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. <br />This criterion is not met. <br /> <br />b. There are circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner; The <br />existing house was not build by the current owners. However, this is not justification <br />necessary support the new encroachments into the average lakeshore setback or the <br />lake yard. While the home was not originally constructed by the current owners, they <br />have a right to keep and even re-build the home in-kind. The constructed expansions are <br />not a right, are not necessary to preserve the existing home, and are not supported by <br />practical difficulty; and <br /> <br />c. The variance will not alter the essential character of the locality. The proposed variances <br />reflect expansion of the footprint and the volume of the home and result in additional <br />encroachment into the setbacks toward the lake, all of which are out of character with <br />the neighborhood. The home expansions and new hardcover areas within the setback <br />areas are not supported by practical difficulty and are inconsistent with the <br />Comprehensive Plan. This criterion is not met. <br /> <br />Additionally City Code 78-123 provides additional parameters within which a variance may be granted as <br />follows: <br />4. Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. Economic considerations <br />have not been a factor in the variance approval determination. <br /> <br />5. Practical difficulties also include but are not limited to inadequate access to direct sunlight for <br />solar energy systems. Variances shall be granted for earth-sheltered construction as defined in <br />Minn. Stat. § 216C.06, subd. 17, when in harmony with Orono City Code Chapter 78. This <br />condition is not applicable. <br /> <br />6. The board or the council may not permit as a variance any use that is not permitted under Orono <br />City Code Chapter 78 for property in the zone where the affected person's land is located. This <br />condition is not applicable, as a residential home is an allowed use in the LR-1C District. <br /> <br />7. The board or council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one-family dwelling as a <br />two-family dwelling. This condition is not applicable. <br /> <br />8. The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such property <br />or immediately adjoining property. There are no obvious special conditions applying to the <br />structure or the land which are unique, or support the requested variances. Beyond the existing