09-11-2023 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

FILE #LA23-000038 21 Aug 2023 Page 3 of 4 2. The variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan. The variance to permit a reasonable front entry stoop to encroach into the front yard setback 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 owner’s request is reasonable and the minimum necessary to access the home considering their need for accessible accommodations in the future; b. There are circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner; although the owner built the home, it was constructed prior to our current building setback requirements; and c. The variance will not alter the essential character of the locality. The proposed 8’x 8’ deck/stoop will not alter the character of the neighborhood. 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 residential accessory improvements are allowed uses 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 home was constructed in or about 1972. It is an existing condition on a non-conforming sized lot as it is constructed right up to the minimum 30-foot setback line allowing for only a minimal stoop. This condition is peculiar to the subject property. 9. The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which the land is located. Many of the original cabins and homes in this neighborhood have been reconstructed. The existing original home on the subject property is a unique condition. 10. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. The proposed 8’x 8’ deck is necessary as it preserves the owner’s right of use and enjoyment of the property. 11. The granting of the proposed variance will not in any way impair health, safety, comfort or morals, or in any other respect be contrary to the intent of this chapter. The variance will not impair health, safety, comfort or morals and will not be contrary to the zoning chapter. 12. The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable difficulty. The variance requested is necessary as the home is constructed at the building setback line. The applicant has indicated that the proposed deck will be appropriately sized to accommodate the necessary access ramp and will not merely serve as a convenience to the owner. The Commission may recommend or Council may impose conditions in granting of variances. Any