Laserfiche WebLink
FILE #LA23-000037 <br />August 21, 2023 <br />Page 3 of 5 <br />the average lakeshore setback, however does not create any further footprint expansion and all <br />other setbacks including the 75 -foot lake setback are met. The hardcover on the subject <br />property will remain the same and is in compliance with the ordinance. This criterion is met. <br />2. The variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan. The variance resulting in a screened in <br />porch addition for a residential use is consistent with the comprehensive plan. There have been <br />instances when the City has granted variances from average lakeshore setback when the <br />proposal does not disrupt neighboring views of the lake and is not within the 75 -foot setback. <br />The proposed addition is within the footprint of an existing deck and expansion is not likely to <br />impact any lake views. This criterion is 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 existing deck was constructed prior to the City's current <br />regulations. The current deck is nonconforming with approximately 5 feet of the deck <br />within the average lakeshore setback. The construction of a screened in porch addition <br />on the existing deck footprint increases the use and enjoyment of the lake property and <br />is a reasonable request. The proposal preserves the intent of the ordinance by not <br />disrupting any neighboring lake views. This criterion is met. <br />There are circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner; The <br />existing house and deck were not constructed by the current property owners. The <br />applicant is requesting the average lakeshore setback variance to construct a new <br />screened in porch addition on the existing deck footprint for better use and fit for the <br />current family's needs; and <br />c. The variance will not alter the essential character of the locality. The proposed variance <br />resulting in a new addition on the lakeside of the home will not alter the character of <br />the locality. The project will not enlarge the footprint or protrude closer to any setback. <br />The screened in porch addition will be on top of the existing deck footprint. All other <br />setbacks including the 75 -foot lakeshore setback and hardcover are met. This criterion is <br />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 -1113 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 />