Laserfiche WebLink
FILE #LA22-000064 <br />June 20, 2023 <br />Page 4 of 6 <br />average lakeshore setback. The addition of more hardcover within the protected lakeyard is not <br />supported by the Ordinance. Also, the expansion of the second and third story rooftop terrace <br />into the average lakeshore setback and potentially impacting the lake views for neighboring <br />properties is not in harmony with the general intent and purpose of the Ordinance. Therefore, <br />the application as proposed does not meet the intention of the Ordinance and the criterion is not <br />met. <br />2. The variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan. The variances resulting in the <br />construction of an addition to the existing single-family home is not consistent with the <br />Comprehensive Plan. The applicant has not identified the necessary practical difficulties <br />inherent to the land supporting their requests. This criterion is not met. <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; The construction of an addition to the home is reasonable, <br />however the second story expansion for the addition is not reasonable. The proposed <br />height creates a new vertical encroachment into the average lakeshore setback and is <br />beyond the current roofline of the home. This criterion is not met. <br />There are circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner; The <br />substandard lot size, unique lot shape, and location of the existing building on the <br />property is unique to the property and not created by the property owner. This criterion <br />is met. <br />c. The variance will not alter the essential character of the locality. The proposed addition <br />may impact the lake views of neighboring properties and expands the amount of <br />hardcover within the lakeyard. This is not in character with the neighborhood. This <br />criterion is not met. <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 />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 />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 a permitted use in the LR -113 District. <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 />8. The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such property <br />or immediately adjoining property. The substandard lot size, unique lot shape, and the location <br />