09-16-2024 Planning Commission Packet

Home Browse Search

FILE #LA24-000043 16 September 2024 Page 4 of 5 the side property line may not be reasonable as the massing and shadowing effect resulting from the increased building mass/height in the substandard setback will exacerbate the existing condition. This criterion is not met. 2. The variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan. Generally, variances allowing additions to an existing home in a residential zone would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. However, the setback variances to permit the second story to increase the volume of the home within substandard setbacks may adversely impact the neighboring property to the north and therefore would be inconsistent with the comprehensive plan. This criterion is not met. The resulting hardcover reduction would be a benefit of the project. 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 applicant’s request to permit an upward expansion of the existing nonconforming footprint within the side, lake, and average lakeshore setbacks is not reasonable as there is an adequate building envelope available. A conforming addition would be permitted. b. There are circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner; The lot size and the location of the existing improvements on the property were not created by the owners; and c. The variance will not alter the essential character of the locality. The requested variances will result in the home being out of character with the neighborhood based on the scale and proximity to the northern lot line. The new encroachments resulting from the second story of the home will create additional massing resulting in further reduction in access to sunlight for the northern neighbors and may alter the character of the locality. This criterion is not met. The proposed hardcover reduction provides a benefit to the lake. 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 c ondition is not applicable, as a residential home is an allowed use 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 lot size, home location, and hardcover level are existing conditions that are not uncommon in the immediate neighborhood. 9. The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which the land is located. The location of the home and the hardcover level are existing conditions that are not unique to the property. 10. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. Substantial property right is provided by the principal structure. The proposed upward expansion of the existing nonconforming home into the side, lake, and average lakeshore setbacks is not a right, however, the property has a reasonable building envelope that will support the project in a conforming location. Expanding the home into a setback area with the 47