11-17-2025 - Agenda Packet Planning Commission - Full Packet

Home Browse Search

GOVERNING REGULATIONS AND PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY STANDARDS VARIANCE ANALYSIS (SECTION 6.12.530) In reviewing applications for variance, the Planning Commission shall consider the effect of the proposed variance upon the health, safety and welfare of the community, existing and anticipated traffic conditions, light and air, danger office, risk to the public safety, and the effect on values ofproperty 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 proposed variances are in harmony with the intent of the Ordinance supporting the improvements for the legally nonconforming use. The public boat launch is a legally nonconforming water - oriented use. The improvements proposed to the site for parking, lighting, and accessory structures support the site by improving safety, accessibility and screening on the parcel. 2. The variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan. The variances proposed to rebuild the public access boat launch are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan identifies the use of this property as Park/Recreation/Open Space which include private and public areas. This site is owned by Hennepin County and operates as a public boat launch to access and support activities for Lake Minnetonka. 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 property is a legal nonconforming use. The site has operated as a public boat launch since the 1960s before establishment of the City's current zoning classification of LR-IC. This proposed redesign will maintain this existing use. The improvements proposed are reasonable and support the public boat launch and includes a resign of a public parking lot, ADA improvements, and utilities on the site. b. There are circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner; The property's orientation and proximity to the lake is an existing condition, and there is no available land with which to make the property more conforming. The restricted roadway, low topography, lot size and shape, and location are challenges with the parcel. There should be consideration for variances to setback requirements for the property which is nonconforming. The project has been designed with an effort toward promoting stormwater management, improving accessibility and safety without sacrificing functionality; and 0+