Laserfiche WebLink
LA23-000026 <br />21 August 2023 <br />Page 4 of 6 <br />hardcover), a majority of the existing and proposed hardcover is located within the 75 -foot setback areas; the <br />applicant's plan results in 33.8% of the 75 -foot setback area being covered by hardcover and structures. This is <br />significant and the applicant should provide a breakdown of the existing hardcover in the 75 -foot setback for <br />comparison. <br />The total hardcover reduction is 1,954 square feet for the property. The applicant should clarify how much of <br />the hardcover reduction is within the 75 -foot setback. The submitted existing hardcover calculations do not <br />separately calculate the hardcover within the 75 -foot setback. However, the proposed hardcover calculation <br />sheet does show the improvements specifically within the 75 -foot setback. Exhibit E and Page 3 of Exhibit F <br />illustrate the hardcover changes proposed. <br />Wetland Setbacks (Section 78-1605) <br />Where the MCWD does not require a buffer, a 25 -foot setback shall be required by the City between the edge <br />of all wetlands from any building (principal or accessory) or other structure, septic systems, or wells. The <br />delineated wetland edge is somewhat consistent with the OHWL on the inlet side, therefore many of the same <br />proposed expansions or new encroachments also do not meet the required 25 -foot wetland setback. <br />1. The pool (H) is set back 20 feet from the wetland; <br />2. The pool patio (G) is set back 16 feet from the wetland; <br />3. The six-foot tall stone fence (K) is 12 feet from the wetland; <br />4. The new, circular paver patio (S) on the lakeside of the pool is 16 feet from the wetland; and <br />5. The new "existing" boulder retaining wall (P) was constructed to replace existing timber walls on the <br />lakeside of the home and is located 17 feet from the wetland. <br />Governing Regulation: Variance (Section 78-123) <br />In reviewing applications for variance, the Planning Commission shall consider the effect of the proposed <br />variance upon the health, safety and welfare of the community, existing and anticipated traffic conditions, light <br />and air, danger of fire, risk to the public safety, and the effect on values of property in the surrounding area. The <br />Planning Commission shall consider recommending approval for variances from the literal provisions of the <br />Zoning Code in instances where their strict enforcement would cause practical difficulties because of <br />circumstances unique to the individual property under consideration, and shall recommend approval only when <br />it is demonstrated that such actions will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Orono Zoning Code. <br />Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. Practical difficulties also include but are <br />not limited to inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Variances shall be granted for <br />earth -sheltered construction as defined in Minn. Stat. § 216C.06, subd. 2, when in harmony with this chapter. <br />The board or the council may not permit as a variance any use that is not permitted under this chapter for <br />property in the zone where the affected person's land is located. The board or council may permit as a variance <br />the temporary use of a one -family dwelling as a two-family dwelling. <br />According to MN §462.537 Subd. 6(2) variances shall only be permitted when: <br />1. The variance is in harmony with the general intent and purpose of the Ordinance. The proposed <br />variances are not in harmony with the intent and purpose of the Ordinance. The goal of the <br />ordinance is to reduce or eliminate improvements in the lake yard, the proposal includes new or <br />expanded improvements within the lake yard. This criterion is note met. <br />2. The variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan. The proposed variances to conduct <br />improvements to a nonconforming home and property are not consistent with the comprehensive <br />plan. Reasonable use is established by the existing residential home on the property. The owners <br />have a right to maintain the existing conditions. This criterion is not met. <br />3. The applicant establishes that there are practical difficulties. <br />