11-14-2016 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

FILE # 16-3870 October 17, 2016 Page 3 of 4 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 variance would allow the addition to be located 41.7 feet from the street. The intent of the ordinance is to create large separation between the homes and the street. This intent would still be met. 2. The variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan. The setback as proposed would continue to be consistent with the large open spaces suggested by the comprehensive plan for this type of development. 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 lot size and current configuration of the home do not permit a modest improvement of the home without some encroachment into the setbacks. b. There are circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner; The homeowner did not create the uniqueness himself. The lot was created and principally improved prior to his ownership. Improvements made by the applicant have been made to blend the home into the neighborhood. c. The variance will not alter the essential character of the locality. The proposed improvement and resulting setbacks appears to be consistent with the character of the neighborhood. Homes on the west side of Crestview are setback 25-32 feet, homes on the east side are setback 20-50 feet from Crestview, with the subject parcel currently 57 feet, and proposed to be 41 feet. 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 existing home impacts the location of future additions. The home is currently set back further than most other homes on the street. 5. The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which the land is located. The applicant suggests that the regulations, intended for 2 acre lots, imposed on his lot create a practical difficulty.