05-23-2016 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

On the west side, a wetland creates a finger into the property. In this area, the fence is proposed along the wetland, again to avoid vegetation and slopes. The proposed separation is 0-10 feet where a 35 foot buffer is required. The Planning Commission has not reviewed the variance application. The Council, by unanimous action, may waive reference to the Planning Commission (Section 78-122) and hold the public hearing itself. Applicable Regulation: Variance (Section 78-123) 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. Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. Practical difficulties also include but are not limited to inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Variances shall be granted for earth-sheltered construction as defined in Minn. Stat. § 216C.06, subd. 2, when in harmony with this chapter. The board or the council may not permit as a variance any use that is not permitted 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- family dwelling as a two-family dwelling. According to MN §462.537 Subd. 6(2) variances shall only be permitted when: 1. The variance is in harmony with the general intent and purpose of the Ordinance. The intent of the ordinance is to maintain a rural, natural character adjacent to the lake. The Council should determine if the proposed fencing, at its location, impedes this goal. 2. The variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan. The global intent of the Comprehensive Plan is to maintain a certain character of the City, while establishing minimum standards for health, safety, and general welfare of residents. The fence proposed is consistent in character with minimal lake impact, and accomplishes certain health, safety general welfare goals identified by the City by offering expanded recreational opportunities. 3. The applicant establishes that there are practical difficulties. a. The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the official controls; The property is currently a park. The improvements proposed are consistent with a park, which is a permitted use (publically owned parks and playgrounds). b. There are circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner; The fence location is preferred to avoid invasive work within the tree area. The trees were not planted by the property owner. c. The variance will not alter the essential character of the locality. The fence design is intended to blend into the park character which is rural. The fences are designed to blend into the landscape and will be minimally visible from the street and off the property. Additionally City Code 78-123 provides additional parameters within which a variance may be granted as follows: 4. The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property. The special conditions include the public use of the property, trying to apply regulations primarily intended for private development. The Council should determine if the special conditions warrant a variance.