Laserfiche WebLink
FILE # LA25-000036 <br />18 August 2025 <br />Page 3 of 7 <br /> <br /> <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 applicant requested <br />after-the-fact setback variances to permit patio (and associated improvements) to be allowed as <br />constructed within the 7.5 foot side setback, and the constructed retaining walls over 2 feet in height <br />within 5 feet of the side property line within the lake yard. Although the property lines were not clearly <br />identified or in the assumed location, submittal of an application for permits prior to construction would <br />have illuminated this condition. There is no practical difficulty to permit further encroachment of the patio <br />improvements or the new retaining walls. This criterion is not met. <br /> <br />2. The variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan. The request to permit the as-constructed <br />improvements within the setbacks is inconsistent with the 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 by the <br />official controls. The applicant’s request to permit the improvements constructed within the <br />setbacks without permits is not reasonable. The applicant should provide a revised plan for the <br />patio and stairs that eliminates new encroachments and utilizes the existing non-conforming <br />footprint without impact to the 7.5-foot side yard. This criterion is not met. <br /> <br />b. There are circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner; The new patio <br />improvements and walls were installed by the property owner. This criterion is not met, and <br /> <br />c. The variance will not alter the essential character of the locality. The requested variances will <br />result in limited opportunities to create or maintain drainage within the property. Approval of this <br />request would result in the improvements being out of character with the neighborhood and <br />impacting the view from the lake. This criterion is not met. <br /> <br />Additionally, City Code Section 6.12.530 provides additional parameters within which a variance may be granted <br />as follows: <br />4. Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. Economic considerations have not <br />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 solar <br />energy systems. Variances shall be granted for earth-sheltered construction as defined in Minn. Stat. § <br />216C.06, subd. 17, when in harmony with Orono City Code Chapter 6.12. This 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 City <br />Code Chapter 6.12 for property in the zone where the affected person's land is located. This condition is <br />not applicable, as residential improvements are allowed in the LR-B District. <br /> <br />7. The board or council may permit, as a variance, the temporary use of a one-family dwelling as a two- <br />family dwelling. This condition is not applicable. <br /> <br />8. The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such property or <br />immediately adjoining property. The slope on the property and the orientation of the property lines are <br />conditions that are consistent with the immediate neighbors. This criterion is met. <br /> <br />9. The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which the land is <br />located. The conditions of the property are not unique to the property. This criterion is not met. <br />121