07-21-2025 - Agenda Packet Planning Commission - Full Packet

Home Browse Search

FILE #LA25-000025 21 July 2025 Page 3 of 5 property in the surrounding area. The Planning Commission shall consider recommending approval for variances from the literal provisions of the Zoning Code in instances where their strict enforcement would cause practical difficulties because of circumstances unique to the individual property under consideration, and shall recommend approval only when it is demonstrated that such actions will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Orono Zoning Code. Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. 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. 14, when in harmony with this chapter. The board or the council may not permit as a variance any use that is not permitted under this chapter for property in the zone where the affected person's land is located. The board or council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one-family dwelling as a two-family dwelling. According to MN §462.357 Subd. 6(2) variances shall only be permitted when: 1. The variance is in harmony with the general intent and purpose of the Ordinance: The average lakeshore setback (ALS) is intended to protect lake views from the homes on adjacent lakeshore properties. The proposed placement of the building would have minimal impact to the neighboring sightlines due to the orientation of the lot and the established vegetation on the site. Staff contends there are other portions of the applicant’s property, although streetward of the house, that the proposed accessory building could be constructed to be fully outside of the ALS. A variance in this case, where conforming alternatives exist, conflicts with the intent and purpose of the average lakeshore setback. This criterion is not met. 2. The variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan: The proposed variance to construct a building, accessory to an existing primary residential use is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. This criterion is met. 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: Reasonable use is established by the principal building on the property. The request to construct an accessory building may be a reasonable request of the property owner to get more beneficial use of their property. However, the accessory building should be proposed in a location that meets the applicable official zoning controls. This criterion is not met. b. There are circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner: Staff does not find there are circumstances unique to the property. This criterion is not met. c. The variance will not alter the essential character of the locality: The character of the locality may be altered by approval of this variance. The character of the locality is based on Lake Minnetonka. However, part of this character involves utilization of outdoor patios and similar spaces that do not impact lake views of adjacent properties. An accessory building within the average lakeshore setback could impact this character in a negative way. This criterion is not met. 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: 40