Laserfiche WebLink
File#16-3813 <br /> � 15 Mar 16 <br /> Page 3 of 5 <br /> appears to be solely to facilitate the continuation of the flat lake yard area. <br /> Governing Regulation:Variance (Section 78-123) <br /> In reviewing applications for variance, the Planning Commission shall consider the effect of the <br /> proposed variance upon the health, safety and welfare of the community, existing and <br /> anticipated traffic conditions, light and air, danger of fire, risk to the public safety, and the effect <br /> on values of property in the surrounding area. The Planning Commission shall consider <br /> recommending approva/for variances from the literal provisions of the Zoning Code in instances <br /> where their strict enforcement would cause practical difficulties because of circumstances unique <br /> to the individual property under consideration, and shall recommend approval only when it is <br /> demonstrated that such actions wil!be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Orono Zoning <br /> Code. Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. Practical difficulties <br /> also include but are not limited to inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. <br /> Variances shall be granted for earth-sheltered construction as defined in Minn. Stat. § 216C.06, <br /> subd. 2, when in harmony with this chapter. The board or the council may not permit as a <br /> variance any use that is not permitted under this chapter for property in the zone where the <br /> affected person's land is located.The board or council may permit as a variance the temporary <br /> use of a one-family dwelling as a two-family dwelling. <br /> According to MN §462.537 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. <br /> Granting the lake setback and hardcover variances to allow the Improvements to be <br /> constructed within 75 feet of the OHWL would be in order to preserve and protect the <br /> existing slope in the lake yard and will likely not alter the essential character of the <br /> locality. <br /> 2. The variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan. Granting the requested <br /> variances to permit hardcover and structure resulting from the retaining walls is <br /> consistent with the priorities outlined in the comprehensive plan to protect lakeshore. <br /> The proposal includes screening of the walls from the lake which is further supported <br /> by the comprehensive plan. <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 <br /> permitted by the official controls; The owner proposes to install Improvements <br /> which are residential in nature and reasonable from a residential scope. <br /> b. There are circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner; <br /> The owner has proposed a solution which will protect against failure of the <br /> slope. The existing slope of the lake yard was not a result of actions by the <br /> owner; and <br /> c. The variance will not alter the essential character of the locality. The variances <br /> to permit hardcover and structure within the 75-foot setback will help to <br /> maintain the existing slope and character of the locality. <br /> Additionally City Code 78-123 provides additional parameters within which a variance may be <br /> granted as follows: <br /> 4. The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such <br /> property or immediately adjoining property.The slope of the property combined with <br /> the pre-existing improvements is a unique condition to the subject property. <br />