Laserfiche WebLink
FILE #LA24-000016 <br />April 15, 2024 <br />Page 4 of 6 <br /> <br /> <br />parcel is nonconforming, the design of the addition is not minimal as it includes a second story. <br />The applicant has reasonable use of the property with the existing single-family home. This <br />criterion is not met. <br /> <br />2. The variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan. The proposed variance is not consistent <br />with the comprehensive plan. The comprehensive plan emphasizes the protection of natural <br />resources including our natural waterways. The proposed increase in hardcover and footprint <br />encroachments within the 75-foot lake setback are not consistent with the goals of the <br />comprehensive plan. This criterion is not met. <br /> <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 property owner currently has reasonable use of the site with <br />the existing single-family home with a 2-stall garage. The proposed expansion of the <br />existing home within the lake setback and in front of the average lakeshore setback line <br />is not supported by practical difficulties and therefore is not a reasonable use of the <br />property. This criterion is not met. <br /> <br />b. There are circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner; The <br />existing house was not built by the current owners. The lot is substandard in area and <br />width. The small lot size, substandard width, and existing improvements, such as Crystal <br />Bay Road, are not the result of the current property owner’s actions. This criterion is <br />met. <br /> <br />c. The variance will not alter the essential character of the locality. The proposed variances <br />resulting in the construction of an addition beyond the setbacks of the neighboring <br />properties and thus in front of the average lakeshore setback is not in character with the <br />neighborhood. The neighborhood has many lots that are shallow and substandard in <br />size that require variances to redevelop. However, the City has been strict to adhere to <br />the average lakeshore setback requirements, which this proposal does not meet. This <br />criterion is not met. <br /> <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 /> <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 /> <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-1C District. <br /> <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 /> <br />110