06-12-2023 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

FILE #LA23-000020 May 15, 2023 Page 3 of 5 2. The variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan. The variance resulting in an expanded lakeside deck for a residential use is consistent with the comprehensive plan. There have been instances when the City has granted variances from average lakeshore setback when the proposal does not disrupt neighboring views of the lake and is not within the 75-foot setback. The proposed deck expansion is not likely to impact any lake views and is not within the 75-foot setback. This criterion is met. 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 existing deck was constructed prior to the City’s current regulations. The current deck is nonconforming and within the average lakeshore setback. The expansion of the deck increases the use and enjoyment of the lake property and is a reasonable request. The proposal preserves the intent of the ordinance by not disrupting any neighboring lake views. This criterion is met. b. There are circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner; The existing house and deck were not constructed by the current property owners. The applicant is requesting the average lakeshore setback variance to expand the existing deck for better use and fit for the current family’s needs; and c. The variance will not alter the essential character of the locality. The proposed variance resulting in the expansion of a lakeside deck will not alter the character of the locality. The existing deck will be expanded by approximately 205 square feet and will be 7 feet closer to the lake resulting in a 97 foot setback from the OWHL. The expansion is minimal and will not impact the lake views from either neighboring property. The neighbor to the north is screened by a well-established tree line along the property line and the neighbor to the south’s home viewshed is oriented away from the subject property line. All other setbacks including the 75-foot lakeshore setback and hardcover are met. This criterion is met. 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 home is a permitted use in the LR-1C 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 existing nonconforming deck and the position of the