Laserfiche WebLink
FILE #LA24-000017 <br />20 May 2024 <br />Page 3 of 5 <br /> <br />Governing Regulation: Variance (Section 78-123) <br />In reviewing applications for variance, the Planning Commission shall consider the effect of the <br />proposed variance upon the health, safety and welfare of the community, existing and <br />anticipated traffic conditions, light and air, danger of fire, risk to the public safety, and the effect <br />on values of property in the surrounding area. The Planning Commission shall consider <br />recommending approval for variances from the literal provisions of the Zoning Code in instances <br />where their strict enforcement would cause practical difficulties because of circumstances unique <br />to the individual property under consideration, and shall recommend approval only when it is <br />demonstrated that such actions will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Orono Zoning <br />Code. Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. Practical difficulties <br />also include but are not limited to inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. <br />Variances shall be granted for earth-sheltered construction as defined in Minn. Stat. §216C.06, <br />subd. 14, when in harmony with this chapter. The board or the council may not permit as a <br />variance any use that is not permitted under this chapter for property in the zone where the <br />affected person's land is located. The board or council may permit as a variance the temporary <br />use of a one-family dwelling as a two-family dwelling. <br /> <br />According to MN §462.357 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 <br />requested hardcover variance (with proposed reductions), side setback, and average <br />lakeshore setback variances are in harmony with the Ordinance. The existing home is <br />currently lakeward of both neighbors. The neighbors have not indicated that the new <br />deck will negatively impact their existing views of the lake and the project will result <br />in a decrease of hardcover. <br />2. The variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan. The requested average <br />lakeshore setback, side yard setback, and hardcover variances are consistent with the <br />Comprehensive Plan. The deck results in a new average lakeshore setback <br />encroachment beyond the existing footprint, however does not appear to further <br />impact the adjacent neighbor’s views from the north side. <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 <br />permitted by the official controls; The request to expand the existing <br />nonconforming setback with the addition of a deck lakeward of the average <br />lakeshore setback appears to be reasonable on this property as there is <br />currently no deck on the home and due to the average lakeshore setback, <br />there are no options for a conforming expansion of any portion of the home. <br />The curved shoreline and extreme setbacks of the neighboring homes result in <br />the existing non-conforming condition. The applicants have proposed <br />hardcover removals. <br />b. There are circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner; <br />The location of the existing home, the curved shoreline, and extreme setback <br />location of the neighboring homes, and the existing hardcover are conditions <br />not created by the landowners; and <br />c. The variance will not alter the essential character of the locality. It does not <br />appear that the requested average lakeshore setback variance for the deck <br />will adversely impact views of the lake currently enjoyed by the adjacent <br />property owners or alter the character of the locality. Further, the applicant’s <br />15