Laserfiche WebLink
. FILE#16-3805 <br /> February 12,2016 <br /> Page 3 of 5 <br /> APPLICABLE REGULATION5 <br /> 78-305: LR-1A Lot Standards&Setback Regulations <br /> 7�-1370: Specia!standards for back lots created after�anuary i, �,994. <br /> P/eose revfe�v the applrcant's�iturro?ive(�xhib���f srnd�ra�ical Difj`ice�tfles <br /> �ocumentation informotion{Fxhlbi�D). <br /> Governing Regula4ions:i�ariance(Sec.7&12?j. <br /> !n reviewing applications for variance, the Planning Commission shal! consider the e�fect of the <br /> proposed variance upon rhe health,safety and welfare of the community, existing and anticipated <br /> traffic conditiorrs, light and�ir, danger of fire, risk ro the public safety, and rhe effect on values of <br /> property in the surrounding area. The Planning Commission sha!! consider recommending <br /> approval for variances fiom the lftera!provisions of the Zoning Code in instances where rheir strict <br /> enforcement would cause practica! difficulties because of circumstances unique to the indlvidua! <br /> property under consideration, and shall recommend approva!onty when ir is demonstrated that <br /> such actions wilJ be in keeping wlch the spirit and intent of the Orono Zoning Code. Economic <br /> considerations alane do not constitute practical difficulties. Practical difficulties also include but <br /> are not limited to inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Variances shall <br /> be granted for earth-sheltered construction as defined in Minn.Stat. § 216C.06, subd. 2,when in <br /> harmony with this chapter. The board or the council may not permit as a variance any use that is <br /> not permitted under this chapter for property in the zone where the affected person's land is <br /> located. The board or council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one-family <br /> dwelling as a two-famify dwelling. <br /> According to MN §462.537 Subd. 6(2)variances shal!only be permitted when: <br /> 1. The variance is in harmony with the general intent and purpose of the Ordina�ce. The <br /> rationale for higher standards for front/back lat divisions resulting In the existing back <br /> lot ordinance was documented during 1993 Planning Commission and City Council <br /> discusstons and hearings preceding adoption of the ordinance. Those points include <br /> the following: <br /> a. With such divisions there is created a potential conflict in front yards abutting <br /> rear yards,with the resulting incampatible typical uses of such yards. <br /> b. Driveway outlots which abut adjacent residentially-used side and rear yards <br /> can have a negative impact on those adjacent properties. <br /> c. Creatian af additional driveway cuts within a given length of roadway that <br /> would normally serve one residence,may cause safety problems in some cases. <br /> d. The potential use canflicts and negative impacts noted in a. and b. above can <br /> be reduced or eliminated by requiring highe�standards for buffering, either by <br /> screening or by increased separation of uses. <br /> Planning Commis�ion shoutd conslder whether the current proposa! should be <br /> appraved considering the obove rationale and the speciffc configcrratio» of the <br /> property fn relation to adjocent properties. <br /> 2. The variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan. The variance request is <br /> associa#ed with residential use which is consistent with the comprehensive plan <br /> guiding of this and surrounding properties for residential use. <br />