Project Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Governing Regulation: Variance (Section 78-123) FILE #18-3997 16 Jan 2018 Page 3 of 5 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. Econom ic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties . Practical difficulties also include but are not limited to inadequate access t o direct sun l ight for solar energy systems. Variances shall be granted for earth -sheltered construction as defined in M i nn . Stat. § 216C.06, subd . 2, when in harmony with this chapter. The boa r d or the council may not permit as a variance any use that is not pe r mitted 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-fam il y dwell i ng as a two-family dwelling. Acco rding to MN §462 .537 Subd. 6(2) var iances shall only be permitted when : 1. The var iance is i n harmony with the general intent and purpose of the Ordinance . The requested average lakeshore setback variance is in harmony with the Ordinance as the most adjacent neighbors are situated so that their lake views will not be impacted by the changes to the existi ng home. The additional mass of the roof areas within the 75 - foot setback will not be closer to the lake than existing and will not negatively impact the views into the property from the lake. This criterion is met. 2. The var iance is cons istent wit h the comprehensive plan. The variances resulting in a permit for construction of modifications to the residence without footprint expansions within the setbacks in a residential zone are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan . This criterion is met. 3. The applicant establishes that there are p ractical difficulties . a. The property owner proposes to use t he property in a reasonab le manner no t permitted by the official controls; The request to permit construction of the proposed roof changes lakeward of the average lakeshore setback and within the 75-foot lake setback appear to be reasonable as the owners of the adjacent properties previously stated no objection to the plans; the mature vegetation, topography, and home orientation separate the subject property from the adjacent neighbors. This criterion is met. b. The re are circumstances unique to the property no t created by the landowner; Based on the curvature of the shoreline, the subject property, and therefore the subject home, extends further i nto the lake than the neighboring properties. Also because of the shoreline curvature, the home to the north is set back further from the lake than the subject home resulting in the severe average lakeshore setback applied to the Property. This criterion is met; and c. The variance w i ll not alter the essential characte r of the locality. The requested variances will not result in the subject home being out of characte r with the neighborhood; will not expand the footprint of the home; or result in additional encroachment into the setbacks toward the lake. This cr iterion is met.