Laserfiche WebLink
FILE#16-3833 <br /> 14 June 2016 <br /> Page 3 of 5 <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 surroundinq area. The Planning Commission shall consider <br /> recommending approval 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 will 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. The <br /> variances to allow construction of an in-ground pool are in harmony with the zoning <br /> code; the requested setback variances on this Property are generally consistent with <br /> the intent of the ordinance. <br /> 2.. The variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan. This statement is true; the <br /> requested variances are in line with the residential goals within the comprehensive <br /> 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 variance requests are residential in nature <br /> and are reasonable considering the unique nature of the neighborhood with <br /> significant separation between the properties as well as the elevation <br /> difference between the pool location and the lake. <br /> b. There are circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner; <br /> the location of the home and the site configuration was not created by the <br /> owner, the elevation of the pool area in relation to the surface of Long Lake <br /> greatly impedes visual impact onto the Lake; and <br /> c. The variance will not alter the essential character of the locality. The visual <br /> impacts of the pool will be minimal from the lake due to the topography as well <br /> as from adjacent properties due to the physical distance separation. The pool <br /> location will not alter the character of the neighborhood. <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 size and shape of the property is <br /> similar to a number of the immediate properties along Spring Hill Road within the LR- <br /> 1A district. <br /> 5. The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which <br /> the land is located.The home is located within the 100 foot structural setback from the <br />