Laserfiche WebLink
. <br /> FILE#16-3871 <br /> 12 Oct 16 <br /> Page 3 of 5 <br /> Governing Regulation:Variance (Section 78-123) <br /> In reviewing applicarions 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 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 properry under consideration, and shall recommend approval on/y 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 sotar 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 /> proposed variance will be in harmony with the intent of the Zoning Code as the <br /> proposed structure will be partially screened from view from the street by the <br /> topography and vegetation that exists between the proposed structure and the street. <br /> 2. The variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan. The accessory building is <br /> residential in nature; and the variance would allow for the accessory building to be <br /> located in a partially screened portion of the property. <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 property is sloped toward the rear and <br /> heavily treed. The septic system mound areas prohibit moving the proposed <br /> garage further toward the rear. The applicants proposed to utilize the existing <br /> driveway and remove only a limited number of trees to maintain the screening. <br /> Construction of an accessory building in the proposed location is consistent with <br /> the other OAS setbacks and is reasonable on this rural 5.4 acre residential <br /> property. <br /> b. There are circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner; <br /> The location and side load garage configuration of the existing home; the <br /> location of the septic system mounds; and the topography of the property <br /> prevent the garage from being located further back;and <br /> c. The variance will not alter the essential character of the locality. The accessory <br /> building will not be visually obtrusive when viewed from off of the property. It <br /> will appear as a garage with residential aesthetics viewed off site. This <br /> condition is met. <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 challenge of the septic system <br /> locations, the topography, and wooded nature of the property create logistical <br />