3.16.26 Full Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

FILE # LA26-000006 16 March 2026 Page 3 of 4 Governing Regulation: Variance (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 of fire, risk to the public safety, and the effect on values of 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 proposed location of the home addition does not block lake views of the adjacent property owners, and therefore is harmonious with the intent of the Ordinance. 2. The variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan. No views of the lake are impacted for adjacent properties. The average lakeshore setback variance is consistent with the goals established in the comprehensive plan to protect lake views. 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 variance request is residential in nature and is reasonable considering the unique nature of the property as a large peninsula on the lake. The large area on the property impacted by the application of the average lakeshore setback creates a significant difficulty in locating a conforming building envelope. b. There are circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner; The location of the structures on the property and configuration of the lot were not created by the property owner; and c. The variance will not alter the essential character of the locality. The visual impacts resulting from the addition proposed within the average lakeshore setback will not alter the character of the neighborhood. Rather, the improvement will not impact views from the lake nor will it appear to be more visually obtrusive than the existing buildings on the property. Additionally, City Code Section 6.12.530 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 6.12. This condition is not applicable. 47