01-17-2023 Planning Commission Packet

Home Browse Search

FILE #LA22-000071 17 Jan 2023 Page 4 of 5 1. The variance is in harmony with the general intent and purpose of the Ordinance. The intent of the ordinance is to establish minimum lot sizes and protect against overcrowding. The proposed variances do not negatively impact the goals. The applicants’ proposal would serve to improve some existing nonconformities in the substandard lot width and area. 2. The variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan. The use of the properties for single family residential homes 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 request to move the shared property line between two nonconforming lots improves nonconforming lot width and area for the Briar Street property while not further impacting the buildablity of the Arbor Street property. b. There are circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner; The property positioning was not the result of the landowners. The proposed boundary line adjustment is a reorientation of the previously platted properties. The suggested reorientation of the properties results in an improved orientation in keeping with the neighborhood character; and c. The variance will not alter the essential character of the locality. The lots are both nonconforming as they pertain to lot area and width. Altering the lot line between the properties improves the nonconformity for the Briar Street property but increases the area nonconformity for the Arbor Street property. The boundary line adjustment results in the Arbor Street property having a buildable area generally in line with the other homes along that street. There will be little impact to the 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 a residential property is an allowed use in the RR-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 applicants’ proposed changes to the lot lines will bring the Briar Street property closer to conformance. Many of the properties in the Crystal Bay neighborhood are similarly nonconforming. The lot and area width limitations are not unique to the applicants’ properties. 9. The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which the land is located. The size and orientation of the subject properties, specifically the Arbor Street property, is unique in the Crystal Bay neighborhood. The lot and area width limitations are not unique to the applicants’ properties. 10. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. The property owners indicate that the adjustment of the properties will preserve their property rights.